Are you a pacifist?

[landmine]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/bigbill2/pacifists.jpg

Stupid Fucking Pacificts!

I used to teach English in South Korea. One night, I was drinking cocktails in Seoul. There used to be a bar on the outskirts of Itaewon. It was called The Cult. The woman who owned it spoke great English. On top of that, she was a babe. Great body. Beautiful face. Really put together.

Anyway, she was unfortunate enough to have a good education. And one night she began bad-mouthing the American soldiers, calling them dumb killers and rapists, etc. She also said that North Korea would be less of a threat if the USAFK packed up and left. This is what I told her:

"Listen, honey, troops have a purpose. If Kim Il-Jong decides to come across the border, it's their job to act like a tripwire and kill as many North Koreans as possible. You don't want decent little gentlemen up on the frontlines. You want killers--men who can blow a new asshole into Mr. Kim or Mr. Park without remorse."

Of course she disagreed. She later kicked me out of the bar. But let's face it. Even though she had an ass that I would eat sushi off of any day of the week, her grasp of human nature and politics was seriously lacking.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/bigbill2/iraq_harmon_s_1.jpg


This doesn't bother me in the least!

Wars are difficult. And a soldiers job is to kill. Pacifists and left-wing wackos just get in the way of peace. Peace is maintained through strength. Without American might, this world would be seriously fucked. Pacifists and idealists will never understand this. They have no idea how corrupt and corroded human nature actually is. In order to maintain peace, troublesome murdering motherfuckers need bullets in their heads. There are no two ways about it.

With that in mind, I'm giving my Asshole of the Week award collectively to all the naive lefty pacifists who want to give peace a chance. There's a reason we haven't won a conflict since World War II. Our soldiers now have to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. We used to do things like drop nukes on billigerant nations in order to save the lives of American troops. Now we send them off to foreign nations to get shot, beheaded, tortured, etc. And what do we tell them? Play nice. They can't even let off a little steam without their names getting in the papers.

So what should happen to all those pacifist assholes who hamper our troops and put their lives in danger through their constant pissing and moaning about American aggression? Well, they need to be cornholed and shot by dawn. We'll cornhole them first. It's not like we're savages! Hell, and after we cornhole them, we'll even give them a cigarette. Might as well leave them smiling.

Unfortunately I believe there are laws against that kind of behavior. So what can we do? Pretty much nothing. However, we can call them out for what they really are--a bunch of naive, complaining motherfucking assholes.

[Ian]

Did you write this article?

[landmine]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:46 AM
Did you write this article?
Of course I wrote it. And I spelt belligerent wrong. Sorry. I'm a little drunk.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:40 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/bigbill2/pacifists.jpg

Stupid Fucking Pacificts!

I used to teach English in South Korea. One night, I was drinking cocktails in Seoul. There used to be a bar on the outskirts of Itaewon. It was called The Cult. The woman who owned it spoke great English. On top of that, she was a babe. Great body. Beautiful face. Really put together.

Anyway, she was unfortunate enough to have a good education. And one night she began bad-mouthing the American soldiers, calling them dumb killers and rapists, etc. She also said that North Korea would be less of a threat if the USAFK packed up and left. This is what I told her:

"Listen, honey, troops have a purpose. If Kim Il-Jong decides to come across the border, it's their job to act like a tripwire and kill as many North Koreans as possible. You don't want decent little gentlemen up on the frontlines. You want killers--men who can blow a new asshole into Mr. Kim or Mr. Park without remorse."

Of course she disagreed. She later kicked me out of the bar. But let's face it. Even though she had an ass that I would eat sushi off of any day of the week, her grasp of human nature and politics was seriously lacking.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/bigbill2/iraq_harmon_s_1.jpg


This doesn't bother me in the least!

Wars are difficult. And a soldiers job is to kill. Pacifists and left-wing wackos just get in the way of peace. Peace is maintained through strength. Without American might, this world would be seriously fucked. Pacifists and idealists will never understand this. They have no idea how corrupt and corroded human nature actually is. In order to maintain peace, troublesome murdering motherfuckers need bullets in their heads. There are no two ways about it.

With that in mind, I'm giving my Asshole of the Week award collectively to all the naive lefty pacifists who want to give peace a chance. There's a reason we haven't won a conflict since World War II. Our soldiers now have to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. We used to do things like drop nukes on billigerant nations in order to save the lives of American troops. Now we send them off to foreign nations to get shot, beheaded, tortured, etc. And what do we tell them? Play nice. They can't even let off a little steam without their names getting in the papers.

So what should happen to all those pacifist assholes who hamper our troops and put their lives in danger through their constant pissing and moaning about American aggression? Well, they need to be cornholed and shot by dawn. We'll cornhole them first. It's not like we're savages! Hell, and after we cornhole them, we'll even give them a cigarette. Might as well leave them smiling.

Unfortunately I believe there are laws against that kind of behavior. So what can we do? Pretty much nothing. However, we can call them out for what they really are--a bunch of naive, complaining motherfucking assholes.
Yes I agree. You want the most bad ass people fighting an unrestricted war on your side. Unfortunately they vote too, thier vote is just as good as mine. Thus you must put a 'Disneyland face' on war to make it more acceptable to peaceniks. Wars don't end when both sides agree to quit. They end when one side gets beaten to a pulp and gives up. Just like wars before, the global war on terror ends when terrorist are beaten to a pulp.

[D_Bokk]

I don't think you'll find many pacifist on a Revolutionary Left board. People who believe in Communism, like myself, don't think that the Capitalists will just hand over their power and force is needed for a revolution. Then again, I haven't been here long and I don't know how a lot of the people on this forum intend on achieving Communism.

I, however, agree with nothing you said. If we're going to be the police of the world, we should maybe police all dictators instead of just the ones in the Middle East and in Communist countries. I do like the political cartoon you posted though...

[Forward Union]

This doesn't bother me in the least!

Then you won't mind If I do it to you.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:40 AM
Unfortunately I believe there are laws against that kind of behavior. So what can we do? Pretty much nothing.
Yeah, those damn laws the people you are supporting put in place.

Can't you get your reactionary ideology right?


However, we can call them out for what they really are--a bunch of naive, complaining motherfucking assholes.

Yeah; damn imperialist nuts!

[1936]

OK heres the delly oh!

6 armed men are going to come into your house and rape your children whilst your watching at gun point, your possesions are stolen and your children bleedin out of every orifice, whilst your wife is hung in the street.

Still want these soldiers in your country?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not a pacifist, I think pacifism is stupid. I am an anti-imperialist though.

[1936]

"no war between nations, no peace between class's"

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:24 AM
6 armed men are going to come into your house and rape your children whilst your watching at gun point, your possesions are stolen and your children bleedin out of every orifice, whilst your wife is hung in the street.

Still want these soldiers in your country?
Come the revolution, people like this will be running your country.

[1936]

Oh balloney, the revolution is for the people BY the people.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Anarcho [email protected] 14 2005, 09:35 AM

This doesn't bother me in the least!

Then you won't mind If I do it to you.
Or i did it to your mother, or someone you loved or respected.

[OleMarxco]

Well, what can I say... This article kicks ass :D
That woman seriously need a lesson in "freedom of speech". Not even I bad-mouth the Americans THAT hard, it's not like the North-Koreans are any better, but hey, there's no "nice guys" fighting the wars. It's not the sissies eating lasagne who have cashed off alot of money on shares. It's your grumpy machostic neighbour who works as a postman or a construction worker....but it's not seldom that it's U.S. who starts the war with the one that "offends" their view on the world (imperialism!) ;)

But renember not all pacifists are like that. Some believe they can "convince" the ruling class, nevertheless.....so I'm no pacifist, hell no, bring the AK-47's! :P

But WE won't rule any land if that happens, so don't worry. Then we'd just be another minority elite -- The power will be given back to the people. There would no-longer be cynics not believing in democracy...and the 20% richest of the country "voting".....it would be direct democracy, and ONLY decantralized "states" cooperating. That's what I hope, atleast :rolleyes:

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:51 PM
Well, what can I say... This article kicks ass :D
That woman seriously need a lesson in "freedom of speech". Not even I bad-mouth the Americans THAT hard, it's not like the North-Koreans are any better, but hey, there's no "nice guys" fighting the wars. It's not the sissies eating lasagne who have cashed off alot of money on shares. It's your grumpy machostic neighbour who works as a postman or a construction worker....but it's not seldom that it's U.S. who starts the war with the one that "offends" their view on the world (imperialism!) ;)

But renember not all pacifists are like that. Some believe they can "convince" the ruling class, nevertheless.....so I'm no pacifist, hell no, bring the AK-47's! :P

But WE won't rule any land if that happens, so don't worry. Then we'd just be another minority elite -- The power will be given back to the people. There would no-longer be cynics not believing in democracy...and the 20% richest of the country "voting".....it would be direct democracy, and ONLY decantralized "states" cooperating. That's what I hope, atleast :rolleyes:
'just give it back'?

Did any good communist ever 'just give it back'?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:24 PM
Did any good communist ever 'just give it back'?
No, because no good communist ever had anything of importance to give back.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:40 AM
Wars are difficult. And a soldiers job is to kill. Pacifists and left-wing wackos just get in the way of peace. Peace is maintained through strength. Without American might, this world would be seriously fucked. Pacifists and idealists will never understand this. They have no idea how corrupt and corroded human nature actually is. In order to maintain peace, troublesome murdering motherfuckers need bullets in their heads. There are no two ways about it.

With that in mind, I'm giving my Asshole of the Week award collectively to all the naive lefty pacifists who want to give peace a chance. There's a reason we haven't won a conflict since World War II. Our soldiers now have to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. We used to do things like drop nukes on billigerant nations in order to save the lives of American troops. Now we send them off to foreign nations to get shot, beheaded, tortured, etc. And what do we tell them? Play nice. They can't even let off a little steam without their names getting in the papers.

So what should happen to all those pacifist assholes who hamper our troops and put their lives in danger through their constant pissing and moaning about American aggression? Well, they need to be cornholed and shot by dawn. We'll cornhole them first. It's not like we're savages! Hell, and after we cornhole them, we'll even give them a cigarette. Might as well leave them smiling.

Unfortunately I believe there are laws against that kind of behavior. So what can we do? Pretty much nothing. However, we can call them out for what they really are--a bunch of naive, complaining motherfucking assholes.
If war's so cool, how come you're not in Iraq fighting, eh?

Of course it's much easier to stay at your confortable yankee home and complain about the "liberal pacifist hippies" when you're not the one coming back in some random plastic bags or some coffin with some stupid flag, as if you were "just another number".

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/casket08.jpg

If you like war so much, we will fight one against you.

Until you bring us evidence of wars being "human nature" and you explain why you think peace is kept by "strength" (when it's "strength" what makes wars start), you will be seen just as some fascist wako, like this guys:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Hitlermusso.jpg

Now go back sucking your fascist politician's cock, as you like to do since you were probably abused by another fascist redneck as a child.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Anarcho Rebel+May 14 2005, 04:27 PM--> (Anarcho Rebel @ May 14 2005, 04:27 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 04:24 PM
Did any good communist ever 'just give it back'?
No, because no good communist ever had anything of importance to give back. [/b]
So then there will be an elite class in charge of rule over the lower classes?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Zingu+May 14 2005, 05:55 PM--> (Zingu @ May 14 2005, 05:55 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 04:32 PM

So then there will be an elite class in charge of rule over the lower classes?
Depends, if you are a Leninist, Stalinist or Maoist, then yes...but alot of us on this board, if you didn't notice, are more libertarian socialists, power to the workers...not to the state.


Now landmine, to think we are "peaceniks" is idiotic; we're the ones who you will see throwing firebombs at the police lines and shooting up the Congress building when the time comes. ;)


No war but the class war! [/b]
But that is not a classless system. I'm I missing something here?

[Soviet sally]

Your only acnowladging the minority of posts.

You lost the argument up der /\/\ ages ago

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:57 PM

But that is not a classless system. I'm I missing something here?
What isn't? True, in my view, Leninism just sets up a state that becomes alienated from the proletariat and a new ruling class comes to rule over the proletariat. Thats why I don't like Maoism, Stalininism and other authoritarian ideologies.

[Professor Moneybags]

If war's so cool, how come you're not in Iraq fighting, eh?

Is communism is cool, then why aren't you living in Cuba ?


Of course it's much easier to stay at your confortable yankee home and complain about the "liberal pacifist hippies"

It's easy to whinge about the "evils of capitalism" and the wonders of communism from the top of the ivory tower, too.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 08:23 PM
If communism is so cool, then why aren't you living in Cuba?
.....Because Cuba isn't Communistic, but Socialistic? :rolleyes:
Right. Learn to answer with an ANSWER, next time, "Professor".

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:43 PM
.....Because Cuba isn't Communistic, but Socialistic? :rolleyes:
Right. Learn to answer with an ANSWER, next time, "Professor".
Then why isn't he living there. Surely it's closer to communism and therefore "better" ?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Zingu+May 14 2005, 06:19 PM--> (Zingu @ May 14 2005, 06:19 PM)
[email protected] 14 2005, 05:57 PM

But that is not a classless system. I'm I missing something here?
What isn't? True, in my view, Leninism just sets up a state that becomes alienated from the proletariat and a new ruling class comes to rule over the proletariat. Thats why I don't like Maoism, Stalininism and other authoritarian ideologies. [/b]
But is there really any other form of communism model for running a nation that has been tried with any kind of stability or longevity?

[Colombia]

What you need to realize is that such an occurence takes time to accomplish, and our time just hasn't come up yet.

Just look of the days of feudalism. You would be laughed at if you tried to defend capitalism. They would base their arguments the same as how you base yours on communism. The fact that it has no come about.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by landmine
Stupid Fucking Pacificts!

I used to teach English in South Korea.

Ok, who's the joker? :lol:

An "English teacher" who can't spell "pacifists"?

Yeah, right!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 14 2005, 08:23 PM
Is communism is cool, then why aren't you living in Cuba ?

Then why isn't he living there. Surely it's closer to communism and therefore "better" ?

It's possibly as far from communism as the US. And I'm not kidding.


It's easy to whinge about the "evils of capitalism" and the wonders of communism from the top of the ivory tower, too.

I hardly ever speak about the "wonders of communism". Even if I did, and even if I would have a comfortable enough life (why I don't, even though around here I'm probably "lucky"), I'm not the one worshipping war against some poor country with brainwashed citizens just because my retarded oligarchic leader told me to do so, since his cronies think it's dangerous for me for some unexplainable reason.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Oh, and by the way, if I would be very poor you would accuse me of "stealing the rich hard-working people because you're a lazy loser", and I were rich you would accuse me of "not doing something to stop the evils capitalism has according to you", so either way, you cappies are stupid when it comes to criticizing the left (I mean, when attempting to discredit leftists by pointing out inconsistencies in their views, as I basically did with this imperialist bastard and like you tried to do with your reply).

[cormacobear]

Yah well how good does your english have to be to impress a South Korean

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 15 2005, 04:14 AM
Oh, and by the way, if I would be very poor you would accuse me of "stealing the rich hard-working people because you're a lazy loser",
Depends whether you are actually doing it or not.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 01:37 AM
What you need to realize is that such an occurence takes time to accomplish, and our time just hasn't come up yet.

Just look of the days of feudalism. You would be laughed at if you tried to defend capitalism. They would base their arguments the same as how you base yours on communism. The fact that it has no come about.
Was feudalism really a different breed of feline compared with capitalism? This was a system in response to great personal danger and a great down turn in economic vigor. To me it looks more like a really slown down and scaled back free market. In regards to value, property, trade, and wealth, fuedal views on these things were pretty much the same as the Romans. They were pretty much the same in regards to 'what is mine and what is yours'. They were pretty much the same in regards to exchanges of 'what is mine and what is yours'.

[Rage]

I am pacifist. Yes. But I am willing to aid the Revoloution in non-violent ways.


/,,/
Rock on!

[OleMarxco]

Yeah...RIGHT. How are you going to do that, kiddo? Refill my bullets meanwhile I blow the fuckin' cappies head off? Way to go, RaGe, let's guess whose aiding the revolution in the most way! :)

[Orange Juche]

I believe in violence ONLY for self defense in extreme measures. If someone comes in your house to rape your mother, you obviously should give 'em a black eye, and a bit more.

But when you wish to start a revolution, or change things, I believe nonviolence should always be the first option... and people should remain nonviolent within the context of the movement.

[MKS]

That picture of the dead Iraqi prisoner with the damn American soldier giving the thumbs up is sickening.

its attitudes like the one who wasnt bothered by the picture that create the environments that give us such conflict. The inheritent racism, and almost psychotic attitude demonstrated by such a comment is shocking.

I think it takes a stronger person to be a pacifist than an aggressor. Anybody can fire a gun, can kill. It takes real courage to stand up against such violence and not react as your enemy. Not to lower yourself to such behaviour. (thats an idealist position) but some people insist that such sentiments are useless in the real world. And maybe they are. Maybe sometimes war is needed. However the Iraqi war was not needed, the "war on Terror" is not needed. What is needed, to ensure a real security, is the destruction of American Imperialism, which exploits the mid-east, laying waste to its nations and cultures. to create an environment that fosters understanding and at the leat tolerance. We dont have to love each other, just repsect each other. Because of Americas "War on Terror" whole nations suffer for the acts of a few fundamentalist sects. This kind of disproportionate action is why so many people hate America.

[DoomedOne]

This is what constantly drives me out of these forums (luckily enough peop,e are like me I come back). I have very strong convictions for peace. I think peace is the only means to a truly progressive end. I'm a pacifist to the core, so deep groundly in opposition of violence that I would be up on the soap boxes with everyone else during the revolution raving against all the violent actions. You think some little whiney post you wrote because of my convictions bothers me the least? Look at it this way. We want a workers' revolt right? Well the workers are the country, basically. Without workers giving input the wealthy and the politicians are nothing more than old men with a bunch of meaningless numbers in their bank account. You draw support of the workers for a workers revolt, they revolt, and violence is completely unnecessary. Violence would only be necessary if there was a minority of workers, in which case one can no longer say they are a worker's revolution.

[Taiga]

Without American might, this world would be seriously fucked.

I like this one :lol: :lol: :lol:

The world is fucked by America. And we let it to do it, which is really sad. :angry:

America - the guardian of the world....
America - the peacemaker....
Enough, please.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

MKS, you hit the nail on the head. Some people will not listen to reason and will continue on a course of action, even if it means hurting others to do so. There can be real reasons for wars, but the recent war in Iraq had none. In fact, there were strong reasons to oppose the war and the ensuing occupation. That's why I am against it.


This is what constantly drives me out of these forums (luckily enough peop,e are like me I come back). I have very strong convictions for peace. I think peace is the only means to a truly progressive end. I'm a pacifist to the core, so deep groundly in opposition of violence that I would be up on the soap boxes with everyone else during the revolution raving against all the violent actions.

Right, so you oppose violence to the point were you would actually protest against revolution? Are you that stupid that you are unwilling to defend yourself?


Without workers giving input the wealthy and the politicians are nothing more than old men with a bunch of meaningless numbers in their bank account. You draw support of the workers for a workers revolt, they revolt, and violence is completely unnecessary. Violence would only be necessary if there was a minority of workers, in which case one can no longer say they are a worker's revolution.

Er, if the workers stop working for the bourgeuoisie, the class send in the brass.
Meaning, they set the pigs and the army on you. That's the point at which you'll need to defend yourself against bourgeuois aggression.

I hope you don't learn that the hard way by having a cop break a nightstick over your skull.

[Ele'ill]

Pacifism isn't just one ideology. There are different variations. I am against war and personal aggression mainly because these things have done very little for humanity.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:51 PM
Yeah...RIGHT. How are you going to do that, kiddo? Refill my bullets meanwhile I blow the fuckin' cappies head off? Way to go, RaGe, let's guess whose aiding the revolution in the most way! :)
Again I wish to point out:

People who are going to 'blow heads off' are not going to be the ones establishing a system based on compassion and justice. People who blow heads of don't do that. Bad karma does not make good.

[Jesus Christ!]

Pacifist revolution never got any one any where........................O wait what about hmm what was his name again? O yea Gandhi. I am personally a pacifist, I don't see how you can be against opression and war and noit be a pacifist.

[codyvo]

I agree, I am a peaceful man I don't think that an attempt at a violent revolution would lead to anything but a lot of dead smart communists and even more hatred for communism. But I do believe that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:06 AM
I agree, I am a peaceful man I don't think that an attempt at a violent revolution would lead to anything but a lot of dead smart communists and even more hatred for communism. But I do believe that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
I'm sorry, but your not a communist. That is anti-revoultionary. Communist doctrine and theory is very clear on this, the reovultion is going to be violent. Anti-revolutionaries like you must be dealth with agressively.

[New Tolerance]

They have no idea how corrupt and corroded human nature actually is.

O I see, human beings (you included) are evil, therefore a dictatorial army (ironically, also made of evil human beings!) is needed to whip these fiends into shape.

If you really want to live in a place where authoritarian control is used keep the "evil" human beings in line, then why don't you move to North Korea or Iran?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 22 2005, 04:23 AM

They have no idea how corrupt and corroded human nature actually is.

O I see, human beings (you included) are evil, therefore a dictatorial army (ironically, also made of evil human beings!) is needed to whip these fiends into shape.

If you really want to live in a place where authoritarian control is used keep the "evil" human beings in line, then why don't you move to North Korea or Iran?
No thanks. I rather live in relitively nice free market USA. Plus I don't know how to say 'comrade' in Korean.

[New Tolerance]

No thanks. I rather live in relitively nice free market USA. Plus I don't know how to say 'comrade' in Korean.

Are you trying to make a point?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 25 2005, 12:09 AM

No thanks. I rather live in relitively nice free market USA. Plus I don't know how to say 'comrade' in Korean.

Are you trying to make a point?
Yup.

1) Violent people don't make good compassionate people.

2) Future revolutions will be violent.

3) Compassionate people make compassionate and just systems.

4) The compassionate and just people won't be communist revolutionaries.

[New Tolerance]

Yup.

1) Violent people don't make good compassionate people.

2) Future revolutions will be violent.

3) Compassionate people make compassionate and just systems.

4) The compassionate and just people won't be communist revolutionaries.

and what does this have to do with what I said?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 25 2005, 02:38 AM

Yup.

1) Violent people don't make good compassionate people.

2) Future revolutions will be violent.

3) Compassionate people make compassionate and just systems.

4) The compassionate and just people won't be communist revolutionaries.

and what does this have to do with what I said?
I don't know. Please tell my what you post has anything to do with pacificism?

But...

Don't you agree that communism is a compassionate and just system?

Are violent people compassionate and just? Or are they just brutes?

Can brutes be compassionate and just? Are revolutionares violent people?

Do you see the problem?


True compassion and justice are going to come from pacifist type people and not revolutionaries. One problem, Marxism is very clear, the revolution is going to be violent.

[New Tolerance]

I don't know. Please tell my what you post has anything to do with pacificism?

The guy who started this thread implies that pacifism is wrong because human nature is evil. I was refutting his point that humans are evil, and thus his point is not a proper critique of all-out pacifism.


Don't you agree that communism is a compassionate and just system?


Absolutely not, if you are referring to Marxist-Leninism.


Are violent people compassionate and just? Or are they just brutes?

Can brutes be compassionate and just? Are revolutionares violent people?

Do you see the problem?

See above.


True compassion and justice are going to come from pacifist type people and not revolutionaries. One problem, Marxism is very clear, the revolution is going to be violent.

Bull, justice can not possibly come from pacifism. Pacifism implies that violence and the use of force can NEVER be used, NOT EVEN in the case of self-defense! It implies that when the evil attacks the good, the good should not fight, and just give up, and allow evil to take over.

In other words pacifism implies that evil should be allowed to win. (Is this justice?!! false by definition) In other words pacifism is a system which stands for evil.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not referring to good and evil in a religious sense.

----

On another note, compassion isn't necassarily the goal of socialism. The supposed goal of socialism is justice. (social justice etc etc...)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 25 2005, 08:40 PM

I don't know. Please tell my what you post has anything to do with pacificism?

The guy who started this thread implies that pacifism is wrong because human nature is evil. I was refutting his point that humans are evil, and thus his point is not a proper critique of all-out pacifism.


Don't you agree that communism is a compassionate and just system?


Absolutely not, if you are referring to Marxist-Leninism.


Are violent people compassionate and just? Or are they just brutes?

Can brutes be compassionate and just? Are revolutionares violent people?

Do you see the problem?

See above.


True compassion and justice are going to come from pacifist type people and not revolutionaries. One problem, Marxism is very clear, the revolution is going to be violent.

Bull, justice can not possibly come from pacifism. Pacifism implies that violence and the use of force can NEVER be used, NOT EVEN in the case of self-defense! It implies that when the evil attacks the good, the good should not fight, and just give up, and allow evil to take over.

In other words pacifism implies that evil should be allowed to win. (Is this justice?!! false by definition) In other words pacifism is a system which stands for evil.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not referring to good and evil in a religious sense.

----

On another note, compassion isn't necassarily the goal of socialism. The supposed goal of socialism is justice. (social justice etc etc...)
Do you really believe thugs and warriors are going to be compassionate and just people? That is a problem isn't it? My point is the violent revolutionaries are thugs, warriors, and brutes. Are these people going to become social workers, aid givers, and compassionate people? Or after the revolution are they going to look for the next enemy to kill. Which might be YOU.

Only a true compassionate and just person is going to be a social worker, aid giver, and charity worker. These people don't do a good job of sniping, street fighting, and killing.

[New Tolerance]

Do you really believe thugs and warriors are going to be compassionate and just people? That is a problem isn't it?

3 questions:

- Does defending oneself through the use of force constitute as being a "thug"?
- If so, then how should one morally defend oneself against a violent aggressor?
- Are you a pacifist?


My point is the violent revolutionaries are thugs, warriors, and brutes.

Why?


Are these people going to become social workers, aid givers, and compassionate people?

You are confusing aggression with the use of force par se. Aggressive/irrational people can not live with others in a civilized manner, those who only use force in self-defense can.


Or after the revolution are they going to look for the next enemy to kill. Which might be YOU.

see above.


Only a true compassionate and just person is going to be a social worker, aid giver, and charity worker. These people don't do a good job of sniping, street fighting, and killing.

Why?

On the other hand, see my previous post concerning socialism and justice. Don't confuse revoluntary socialist with social liberals. The former fights for justice (which has little to do with being nice), the latter works for compassion.

--------------------

Furthermore, you still have not shown me what this has to do with what I originally said.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 22 2005, 01:50 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 22 2005, 01:50 AM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 04:06 AM
I agree, I am a peaceful man I don't think that an attempt at a violent revolution would lead to anything but a lot of dead smart communists and even more hatred for communism. But I do believe that "those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
I'm sorry, but your not a communist. That is anti-revoultionary. Communist doctrine and theory is very clear on this, the reovultion is going to be violent. Anti-revolutionaries like you must be dealth with agressively. [/b]
Really? I am anti-revolutionary, because for some reason I had a sneaking suspician that the ones to slow the revolution down were gonna be the right wing militants, the christian right, the military and anybody that speaks out against communism, not me who simply thinks that we should try to diplomatically takeover rather than get slaughtered.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:10 PM

Do you really believe thugs and warriors are going to be compassionate and just people? That is a problem isn't it? My point is the violent revolutionaries are thugs, warriors, and brutes. Are these people going to become social workers, aid givers, and compassionate people? Or after the revolution are they going to look for the next enemy to kill. Which might be YOU.
l
The American founding fathers were revolutionaries, back in the day when the idea of burgeoise democracy was a radical one.

Revolution can work, take example of the American Revolution, or it can't; take example of the French Revolution (Ran in the same parallels as the Russian Revolution, didn't it?)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 26 2005, 01:05 AM

Do you really believe thugs and warriors are going to be compassionate and just people? That is a problem isn't it?

3 questions:

- Does defending oneself through the use of force constitute as being a "thug"?
- If so, then how should one morally defend oneself against a violent aggressor?
- Are you a pacifist?


My point is the violent revolutionaries are thugs, warriors, and brutes.

Why?


Are these people going to become social workers, aid givers, and compassionate people?

You are confusing aggression with the use of force par se. Aggressive/irrational people can not live with others in a civilized manner, those who only use force in self-defense can.


Or after the revolution are they going to look for the next enemy to kill. Which might be YOU.

see above.


Only a true compassionate and just person is going to be a social worker, aid giver, and charity worker. These people don't do a good job of sniping, street fighting, and killing.

Why?

On the other hand, see my previous post concerning socialism and justice. Don't confuse revoluntary socialist with social liberals. The former fights for justice (which has little to do with being nice), the latter works for compassion.

--------------------

Furthermore, you still have not shown me what this has to do with what I originally said.
Why?

Why are revolutionaries thugs and brutes?

Simple. They are not social workers. Which are the people you would depend upon for justice and compassion.

I am reminded of a line from a movie, which a CIA agent in thanks was granting a wish for people who did him a favor. One person wanted a Winnabego with a leather interior. One wanted a phone number of a beautiful woman. All of them got thier wish. Then the last one asked for world peace, the response was, "We are the CIA, we don't do world peace."

The same for people who can use violence, they don't 'do justice and compassion'.

I'm not a pacificist. I don't pretend to be near that kind of moral strength or character.

Go visit the 'intellecutal' threads. The general consensus is violent people aren't the intellecutals in revolution, they are the muscle.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Zingu+May 26 2005, 02:22 AM--> (Zingu @ May 26 2005, 02:22 AM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 11:10 PM

Do you really believe thugs and warriors are going to be compassionate and just people? That is a problem isn't it? My point is the violent revolutionaries are thugs, warriors, and brutes. Are these people going to become social workers, aid givers, and compassionate people? Or after the revolution are they going to look for the next enemy to kill. Which might be YOU.
l
The American founding fathers were revolutionaries, back in the day when the idea of burgeoise democracy was a radical one.

Revolution can work, take example of the American Revolution, or it can't; take example of the French Revolution (Ran in the same parallels as the Russian Revolution, didn't it?) [/b]
There is a big difference between a communist revolutionary and a USA founding father. The Founding Fathers recoginized basic human rights that communist do not. The rights and protections that Founding Fathers consider as hallmarks of good government and democracy are things that are disdained by communist.

Plus the Founding Fathers revolutionaries produced a stable system that is 225+ years old. A commie has yet to make one to last 80.

[New Tolerance]

Why?

Why are revolutionaries thugs and brutes?

Simple. They are not social workers. Which are the people you would depend upon for justice and compassion.


This is the most laughable argument that I've heard in sometime. Does the Begging the question fallacy mean anything to you? What you are proposing here is circular logic:

Revolutionaries are brutes
why?
Because they are not social workers
why?
Because they are brutes
why?
Because they are not social workers
.... and on and on

Unless you are trying to present some different argument. I suggest you study some logic before continuing debate.


I'm not a pacificist. I don't pretend to be near that kind of moral strength or character.

They are moral?!! What do you have to say about the fact that these are people who are handing civilization over to evil? A point which I've made earlier.


Go visit the 'intellecutal' threads. The general consensus is violent people aren't the intellecutals in revolution, they are the muscle.

argumentum ad populum

"...The general consensus..."

You expect me to accept your argument simply because it is the "consensus"??!

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 26 2005, 09:11 PM

Why?

Why are revolutionaries thugs and brutes?

Simple. They are not social workers. Which are the people you would depend upon for justice and compassion.


This is the most laughable argument that I've heard in sometime. Does the Begging the question fallacy mean anything to you? What you are proposing here is circular logic:

Revolutionaries are brutes
why?
Because they are not social workers
why?
Because they are brutes
why?
Because they are not social workers
.... and on and on

Unless you are trying to present some different argument. I suggest you study some logic before continuing debate.


I'm not a pacificist. I don't pretend to be near that kind of moral strength or character.

They are moral?!! What do you have to say about the fact that these are people who are handing civilization over to evil? A point which I've made earlier.


Go visit the 'intellecutal' threads. The general consensus is violent people aren't the intellecutals in revolution, they are the muscle.

argumentum ad populum

"...The general consensus..."

You expect me to accept your argument simply because it is the "consensus"??!
Do warriors and brutes build hospitals?
Do soldiers and marksmen make good kindergarden teachers?
Do gunmen and street figheters make good grief counselors?

Or do they destroy and kill?

The people who will make society just and fair are people who build hospital, nurture small children, and intouch with feelings. Soldiers and street fighters don't do that.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 26 2005, 09:11 PM

Why?

Why are revolutionaries thugs and brutes?

Simple. They are not social workers. Which are the people you would depend upon for justice and compassion.


This is the most laughable argument that I've heard in sometime. Does the Begging the question fallacy mean anything to you? What you are proposing here is circular logic:

Revolutionaries are brutes
why?
Because they are not social workers
why?
Because they are brutes
why?
Because they are not social workers
.... and on and on

Unless you are trying to present some different argument. I suggest you study some logic before continuing debate.


I'm not a pacificist. I don't pretend to be near that kind of moral strength or character.

They are moral?!! What do you have to say about the fact that these are people who are handing civilization over to evil? A point which I've made earlier.


Go visit the 'intellecutal' threads. The general consensus is violent people aren't the intellecutals in revolution, they are the muscle.

argumentum ad populum

"...The general consensus..."

You expect me to accept your argument simply because it is the "consensus"??!
A true intellectual will notice that the common and base response to achive an ends is with violence.

A true intellectual of strong will and character will stand and take abuse danger. They will fight back reptilian responses and do the 'right thing' which is not hurt your attacker.

Please use your intellect and not your reptile brain.

[New Tolerance]

Do warriors and brutes build hospitals?
Do soldiers and marksmen make good kindergarden teachers?
Do gunmen and street figheters make good grief counselors?

Or do they destroy and kill?

The people who will make society just and fair are people who build hospital, nurture small children, and intouch with feelings. Soldiers and street fighters don't do that.

I have already addressed this. You are evading my point. (and you still have yet to show what this has to do with what I originally said)

You have yet to prove that people who participate in battle are incapable of taking up other taskes.

On the other hand, let me refute your point from a second perspective:

Suppose that the revoluntaries are incapable of taking up other taskes, it doesn't mean that 100% of the population had actively participated in the revolution. Those who didn't can take up those jobs you speak, while the revoluntionaries can remain in the army as the defense force.


A true intellectual will notice that the common and base response to achive an ends is with violence.

A true intellectual of strong will and character will stand and take abuse danger. They will fight back reptilian responses and do the 'right thing' which is not hurt your attacker.

Please use your intellect and not your reptile brain.

So now intellect means to appease and surrender to evil. What a joke.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:40 AM

There is a big difference between a communist revolutionary and a USA founding father. The Founding Fathers recoginized basic human rights that communist do not. The rights and protections that Founding Fathers consider as hallmarks of good government and democracy are things that are disdained by communist.

Plus the Founding Fathers revolutionaries produced a stable system that is 225+ years old. A commie has yet to make one to last 80.
Wow, lots of bigoted garbage that I hear.

I'll say it again; NOT ALL COMMUNISTS ARE LENINISTS. You CANNOT label us all under Lenin's name and the Russian Revolution's name, many of us were in OPPISTION of the Russian Revolution, both Kaustky and Luxemburg denouced the Russian Revolution vetemently.

Yes, Lenin might have wanted to burn the bill of rights,

but we, the "Communist Left" want to add to it! We want democractization of the workplace dammit! We want to spread democracy!


If you want to see the real "Communists" who you are imagining, visit these forums, Stalinist forums, its a real wasteland, and they'll ban you outright for argueing against you.

http://www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums/

You'll be running back here and telling us how open minded we are compared to those guys.

[ice87]

i certainly dont support war. but i think i'm a realist in believing that there is NO way to prevent war. These so called pacifists should stop their bullshit right away. if you want people to stop fighting wars, its just like wanting people to stop doing drugs or stop drinking alcohol. its just not going to happen.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Zingu+May 26 2005, 11:56 PM--> (Zingu @ May 26 2005, 11:56 PM)
[email protected] 26 2005, 07:40 AM

There is a big difference between a communist revolutionary and a USA founding father. The Founding Fathers recoginized basic human rights that communist do not. The rights and protections that Founding Fathers consider as hallmarks of good government and democracy are things that are disdained by communist.

Plus the Founding Fathers revolutionaries produced a stable system that is 225+ years old. A commie has yet to make one to last 80.
Wow, lots of bigoted garbage that I hear.

I'll say it again; NOT ALL COMMUNISTS ARE LENINISTS. You CANNOT label us all under Lenin's name and the Russian Revolution's name, many of us were in OPPISTION of the Russian Revolution, both Kaustky and Luxemburg denouced the Russian Revolution vetemently.

Yes, Lenin might have wanted to burn the bill of rights,

but we, the "Communist Left" want to add to it! We want democractization of the workplace dammit! We want to spread democracy!


If you want to see the real "Communists" who you are imagining, visit these forums, Stalinist forums, its a real wasteland, and they'll ban you outright for argueing against you.

http://www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums/

You'll be running back here and telling us how open minded we are compared to those guys. [/b]
Well well, that is a big problem isn't. Your going to have those 'nasty' communist any revolution. Plus those 'nasty' communist seem to do much better at consoldating political power vs. the 'intellecutal' and 'nice' communist. Historically the 'intellectual' communist seem to get free trips to re-education camps while the 'nasty' communist become presidents for life. That is a problem isn't.

Jeffersonian democracy seems to have solved that problem 225 years ago and communism has not.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 01:43 AM
i certainly dont support war. but i think i'm a realist in believing that there is NO way to prevent war. These so called pacifists should stop their bullshit right away. if you want people to stop fighting wars, its just like wanting people to stop doing drugs or stop drinking alcohol. its just not going to happen.
And the solution to these problems is what, to blow the people up.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 26 2005, 11:08 PM

Do warriors and brutes build hospitals?
Do soldiers and marksmen make good kindergarden teachers?
Do gunmen and street figheters make good grief counselors?

Or do they destroy and kill?

The people who will make society just and fair are people who build hospital, nurture small children, and intouch with feelings. Soldiers and street fighters don't do that.

I have already addressed this. You are evading my point. (and you still have yet to show what this has to do with what I originally said)

You have yet to prove that people who participate in battle are incapable of taking up other taskes.

On the other hand, let me refute your point from a second perspective:

Suppose that the revoluntaries are incapable of taking up other taskes, it doesn't mean that 100% of the population had actively participated in the revolution. Those who didn't can take up those jobs you speak, while the revoluntionaries can remain in the army as the defense force.


A true intellectual will notice that the common and base response to achive an ends is with violence.

A true intellectual of strong will and character will stand and take abuse danger. They will fight back reptilian responses and do the 'right thing' which is not hurt your attacker.

Please use your intellect and not your reptile brain.

So now intellect means to appease and surrender to evil. What a joke.
Brutes, warriors, soldiers, and street fighters can do other things? Maybe they can do other things close to killing and destroying, but not soup kitchens, grief counselors, and nuturing disadvantaged children. You want me to prove it? Why don't you just accept it. Common, deep down you know I'm right.

Pacificism is not surrending to evil. Gandhi won. He didn't by not attacking with hand held weapons. His weapon was his moral superiority and character; in addition field dressings and first aid from the beatings. That is one superior tough individual, to know your going to get beaten and to accept it. That is the kind of man and people who will build a socially just system. It won't come from the barrel of a gun and the person pulling the trigger.

[New Tolerance]

Brutes, warriors, soldiers, and street fighters can do other things? Maybe they can do other things close to killing and destroying, but not soup kitchens, grief counselors, and nuturing disadvantaged children. You want me to prove it? Why don't you just accept it. Common, deep down you know I'm right.

You have no idea how pathetic you sound to me right now. Unable to come up with a good reason, and pleading for me to "just accept it" and save you from intellectual embrassment. This is like Hitler going up to the Russians after they've taken Berlin, and telling them that he will spare them if they accept the 'German victory' (!!!).

I'll repeat this one last time, give me a logical deduction, or else you'll be declaring yourself an open irrationalist, in which case you would also be declaring that it is impossible to have a rational debate with you. Since it is impossible to reason with a person who rejects reason.


Pacificism is not surrending to evil. Gandhi won. He didn't by not attacking with hand held weapons. His weapon was his moral superiority and character; in addition field dressings and first aid from the beatings. That is one superior tough individual, to know your going to get beaten and to accept it. That is the kind of man and people who will build a socially just system. It won't come from the barrel of a gun and the person pulling the trigger.

Gandhi only "won" because he was lucky to be dealing with a civilized semi-free, basically good, socialistic Britain. If he were dealing with an evil man like Hitler, his face would have been cutten off and used as toilet paper by the Nazis, and he would certainly not have "won". Has non-violent movements ever succeed against brutal dictatorships willing to commit mass murder like those of Hitler? Name me a few.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 27 2005, 09:40 PM

Brutes, warriors, soldiers, and street fighters can do other things? Maybe they can do other things close to killing and destroying, but not soup kitchens, grief counselors, and nuturing disadvantaged children. You want me to prove it? Why don't you just accept it. Common, deep down you know I'm right.

You have no idea how pathetic you sound to me right now. Unable to come up with a good reason, and pleading for me to "just accept it" and save you from intellectual embrassment. This is like Hitler going up to the Russians after they've taken Berlin, and telling them that he will spare them if they accept the 'German victory' (!!!).

I'll repeat this one last time, give me a logical deduction, or else you'll be declaring yourself an open irrationalist, in which case you would also be declaring that it is impossible to have a rational debate with you. Since it is impossible to reason with a person who rejects reason.


Pacificism is not surrending to evil. Gandhi won. He didn't by not attacking with hand held weapons. His weapon was his moral superiority and character; in addition field dressings and first aid from the beatings. That is one superior tough individual, to know your going to get beaten and to accept it. That is the kind of man and people who will build a socially just system. It won't come from the barrel of a gun and the person pulling the trigger.

Gandhi only "won" because he was lucky to be dealing with a civilized semi-free, basically good, socialistic Britain. If he were dealing with an evil man like Hitler, his face would have been cutten off and used as toilet paper by the Nazis, and he would certainly not have "won". Has non-violent movements ever succeed against brutal dictatorships willing to commit mass murder like those of Hitler? Name me a few.
I see it now. Your not a real communist, your an anti-revolutionary. I love everyone. So much I want the best for everyone. I find it distrubing that you can kill and use violence so easily. There won't be any social justice comming out of an attitude like yours.

[New Tolerance]

I see it now. Your not a real communist, your an anti-revolutionary.

Realize that I never said that I am a "real" small "c" communist or that I am some sort of revoluntionary.


There won't be any social justice comming out of an attitude like yours.

If "social justice" = "simple irrational emotionalism", then I want to have nothing to do with it.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 27 2005, 11:29 PM

I see it now. Your not a real communist, your an anti-revolutionary.

Realize that I never said that I am a "real" small "c" communist or that I am some sort of revoluntionary.


There won't be any social justice comming out of an attitude like yours.

If "social justice" = "simple irrational emotionalism", then I want to have nothing to do with it.
I don't think the proletariats would appreciate your attitude.

[New Tolerance]

I don't think the proletariats would appreciate your attitude.

irrelevent.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 28 2005, 12:38 AM

I don't think the proletariats would appreciate your attitude.

irrelevent.
You need to be closely watched as an anti-revolutionary. What the workers want is very important. It is them who will re-educate you.

[New Tolerance]

You need to be closely watched as an anti-revolutionary. What the workers want is very important. It is them who will re-educate you.

What a joke, what the "workers want"... what if they are brainwashed into wanting a dictatorship hmm? Should we give them that as well?

I am working in their interest (they are judge my ideas logically if they see some flaw), I am not working to be popular.

[The Apathetic Atheist]

“This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

Reich-Marshall Herman Goering
Nuremberg, 1945

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 28 2005, 02:32 AM

You need to be closely watched as an anti-revolutionary. What the workers want is very important. It is them who will re-educate you.

What a joke, what the "workers want"... what if they are brainwashed into wanting a dictatorship hmm? Should we give them that as well?

I am working in their interest (they are judge my ideas logically if they see some flaw), I am not working to be popular.
Oh, so in the end, if you don't like what the protelariat is doing, you have the final word 'yes' or 'no'. I would like to remind you that YOU don't order or determine what the protelariat will do. If you fight what we want, I guarantee you will be re-educated. As an intellectual you have to depend on US for your existance. If your deemed an anti-revolutionary, then it is off 'to the woods' for you. There you can intellectualize all you want.

Thinking what the workers what is 'irrelevant' is YOUR flaw. What the workers want and YOU doing to opposite against thier wishes is not freedom, it is them enslaved to you. If you do this, you will be lucky if you get re-educated. Maybe you will get a bullet in the back of your head and a secret grave.

Hey I got a deep saying for you:

"No matter where you are, there you go"

[nike chiapas]

No. :ph34r:

[New Tolerance]

Oh, so in the end, if you don't like what the protelariat is doing, you have the final word 'yes' or 'no'.

On logical moral grounds, but not on actually legal grounds, I will condemn them if I think what they are doing is wrong, but I doubt that I have the power to actually stop them.


I would like to remind you that YOU don't order or determine what the protelariat will do.

See above.


If you fight what we want, I guarantee you will be re-educated.

So you are a believer in dictatorship and slavery? Is there even a point in continuing to debate with you?


. As an intellectual you have to depend on US for your existance.

Bull, I depend on freedom, it might as well as be France, Britain or comtemporary Germany.


If your deemed an anti-revolutionary, then it is off 'to the woods' for you. There you can intellectualize all you want.

So you do believe in dictatorship. How do you justify this irrationalism?

To repeat something: I am NOT a Marxist-Leninist.


Thinking what the workers what is 'irrelevant' is YOUR flaw. What the workers want and YOU doing to opposite against thier wishes is not freedom, it is them enslaved to you. If you do this, you will be lucky if you get re-educated. Maybe you will get a bullet in the back of your head and a secret grave.

Intimidation.


Hey I got a deep saying for you:

"No matter where you are, there you go"

This is a meaningless statement.

[Ele'ill]

i certainly dont support war. but i think i'm a realist in believing that there is NO way to prevent war. These so called pacifists should stop their bullshit right away. if you want people to stop fighting wars, its just like wanting people to stop doing drugs or stop drinking alcohol. its just not going to happen.

Stop their bullshit? Because they are against war? What is 'their bullshit? Are you pro war? That can be the only explanation for your attitude. Is there such a thing as a just war? Justified killing? Who makes the decision? The proletariat? No. Because the proletariat do not collectively pull the trigger.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 28 2005, 06:19 PM

Oh, so in the end, if you don't like what the protelariat is doing, you have the final word 'yes' or 'no'.

On logical moral grounds, but not on actually legal grounds, I will condemn them if I think what they are doing is wrong, but I doubt that I have the power to actually stop them.


I would like to remind you that YOU don't order or determine what the protelariat will do.

See above.


If you fight what we want, I guarantee you will be re-educated.

So you are a believer in dictatorship and slavery? Is there even a point in continuing to debate with you?


. As an intellectual you have to depend on US for your existance.

Bull, I depend on freedom, it might as well as be France, Britain or comtemporary Germany.


If your deemed an anti-revolutionary, then it is off 'to the woods' for you. There you can intellectualize all you want.

So you do believe in dictatorship. How do you justify this irrationalism?

To repeat something: I am NOT a Marxist-Leninist.


Thinking what the workers what is 'irrelevant' is YOUR flaw. What the workers want and YOU doing to opposite against thier wishes is not freedom, it is them enslaved to you. If you do this, you will be lucky if you get re-educated. Maybe you will get a bullet in the back of your head and a secret grave.

Intimidation.


Hey I got a deep saying for you:

"No matter where you are, there you go"

This is a meaningless statement.
Why? Why must you continue to fight the protelariat? Only one group of people fight the protelariat, they are bouguise. Are you one of those?

Let me see:

1) Intellectual. Check

2) Wants things the protelariat does not want. Check

3) Will fight against the protelariats wishes. Check.

Yup your an anti-revolutionary. While all I want is to give everything the protelariat wants and not get in thier way. I know whose side I'm on, how about you?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 28 2005, 06:19 PM

Oh, so in the end, if you don't like what the protelariat is doing, you have the final word 'yes' or 'no'.

On logical moral grounds, but not on actually legal grounds, I will condemn them if I think what they are doing is wrong, but I doubt that I have the power to actually stop them.


I would like to remind you that YOU don't order or determine what the protelariat will do.

See above.


If you fight what we want, I guarantee you will be re-educated.

So you are a believer in dictatorship and slavery? Is there even a point in continuing to debate with you?


. As an intellectual you have to depend on US for your existance.

Bull, I depend on freedom, it might as well as be France, Britain or comtemporary Germany.


If your deemed an anti-revolutionary, then it is off 'to the woods' for you. There you can intellectualize all you want.

So you do believe in dictatorship. How do you justify this irrationalism?

To repeat something: I am NOT a Marxist-Leninist.


Thinking what the workers what is 'irrelevant' is YOUR flaw. What the workers want and YOU doing to opposite against thier wishes is not freedom, it is them enslaved to you. If you do this, you will be lucky if you get re-educated. Maybe you will get a bullet in the back of your head and a secret grave.

Intimidation.


Hey I got a deep saying for you:

"No matter where you are, there you go"

This is a meaningless statement.
No more or less meainingless than stuff about boxes and thinking.

[New Tolerance]

Why? Why must you continue to fight the protelariat? Only one group of people fight the protelariat, they are bouguise. Are you one of those?

evasion. (or do you admitt that you are an advocate of dictatorship? If so then why don't you move to North Korea?)

Furthermore, you speak as if proletarians are somehow imcapable of fighting idiots on their own side.


2) Wants things the protelariat does not want. Check

Pathetic fallacy


3) Will fight against the protelariats wishes. Check.

Pathetic fallacy


While all I want is to give everything the protelariat wants and not get in thier way.

And if they want to kill you? :rolleyes:


Yup your an anti-revolutionary. While all I want is to give everything the protelariat wants and not get in thier way. I know whose side I'm on, how about you?

gangsterism.

Furthermore: I AM ANTI-REVOLUTIONARY (revoluntionary implying force and violence)

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 31 2005, 12:52 AM

Why? Why must you continue to fight the protelariat? Only one group of people fight the protelariat, they are bouguise. Are you one of those?

evasion. (or do you admitt that you are an advocate of dictatorship? If so then why don't you move to North Korea?)

Furthermore, you speak as if proletarians are somehow imcapable of fighting idiots on their own side.


2) Wants things the protelariat does not want. Check

Pathetic fallacy


3) Will fight against the protelariats wishes. Check.

Pathetic fallacy


While all I want is to give everything the protelariat wants and not get in thier way.

And if they want to kill you? :rolleyes:


Yup your an anti-revolutionary. While all I want is to give everything the protelariat wants and not get in thier way. I know whose side I'm on, how about you?

gangsterism.

Furthermore: I AM ANTI-REVOLUTIONARY (revoluntionary implying force and violence)
I won't give the protelariat reason to kill me, remember I doing everthing they want, I'm going with the protelariat flow, while you are willing to oppose them. That is reason enough to kill you. I'm more loyal that you are. I won't oppose the protelariat, while you have flatly stated that you are willing to do it. That is reason to kill you.

The protelariat are never wrong. It is only intellectuals who hold themselves above the protelariat who make up things they think are right and protelariate don't want, are the ones who are wrong.