Would You Kill For A Cause

[Funky Monk]

I'll post this here because i can't remember if i was restricted to OI last time i was here.

I'm asking a simple question, like a poll but i would prefer a more indepth reply.

How would you feel about killing a fellow man?
Do you think you'd be able to do it?
Would you do it to further a particular cause, and if so, in what circumstances, would they have to be attacking you? Would they have to conform to certain biological/social characteristics ie. male, over 18, actively capitalist?
Or would you take the pacifist approach and refuse to kill a fellow human being?


I'll go first as i posed the question. Personally i don't think i could kill anyone, i hope that humanity entails the potential for rising above the need to kill eachother even at the sacrifice of the self.

Reet, now open to anyone who wants to reply.

[timbaly]

I don't think I would be able to bring myself to kill another person unless, this person was someone who I knew had committed many heinous acts against other people or if the person was actively trying to kill me. I can't see myself killing a non-violent criminal, or an enemy solider unless the solider was singling me out and specifically trying to kill me. I can't see myself shooting at soliders in the distance or ambushing them if I were a solider myself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would kill to defend myself, my friends and my loved ones. No question.

Contrary to what the vacillating, wishy-washy pacifists will tell you, there are some types of people in the world who do not deserve to live.

[Led Zeppelin]

I am unable to kill another human, I have no problems with ordering it though.

[LSD]

Would You Kill For A Cause?

Yes.

[Sihvyl]

I would kill to defend myself, my friends and my loved ones. No question.

I'm with noXion on this one. It would have to be a cause that hit home with me. I would have a hard time with just being told to kill someone. Maybe if I didn't look at the person in the eyes...(God, that sounds bad) I just couldn't kill a stranger that did me no personal injustice after looking into their life pleading eyes.

[Djehuti]

Probably...in defense of myself or others, or in battle. But not in cold blood.

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 20 2005, 11:32 PM

How would you feel about killing a fellow man?
Do you think you'd be able to do it?
Would you do it to further a particular cause, and if so, in what circumstances, would they have to be attacking you? Would they have to conform to certain biological/social characteristics ie. male, over 18, actively capitalist?
Or would you take the pacifist approach and refuse to kill a fellow human being?
1. I'd be scared and fearful, wondering if what I did would be right, and if I fucked over my mental stability.

2. Yes, the point of successfully doing an action is not thinking about it.

3. It'd really all depend. I could only kill someone who would attempt to stop my beliefs or to opress them.

4. Pacifisim... I hate it really.

[red_orchestra]

It honestly depends on the circumstances. I would not kill unless it was absolutely unavoidable.

[Xvall]

How would you feel about killing a fellow man?
Do you think you'd be able to do it?

Yeah. I really don't see what's so bad about killing your "fellow man". I mean, obviously I see the problem with indiscriminate killing of random members of society and people that haven't perpetuated any harm, but I don't know why it is that people find it wrong to kill humans simply because they are humans.

[Decolonize The Left]

I would kill to defend myself, my friends and my loved ones. No question.

Enough said.

-- August

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 21 2005, 01:35 AM

Would You Kill For A Cause?

Yes.
And what cause would this be? How much would it have to further the cause? I mean would you kill a civilian if it slightly facilitated the advance of capitalism? Or would it have to significantly change the world?

[Funky Monk]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 21 2005, 04:16 AM

How would you feel about killing a fellow man?
Do you think you'd be able to do it?

Yeah. I really don't see what's so bad about killing your "fellow man". I mean, obviously I see the problem with indiscriminate killing of random members of society and people that haven't perpetuated any harm, but I don't know why it is that people find it wrong to kill humans simply because they are humans.
Well, a lot of it comes down to "divine right". Taking it out of its religious sense, who has the right to choose who livse and dies? Who can decide to end the potential of a human being and deprive the world of a person. Would killing them achieve anything?


To be honest i'm moved by the pacifist movement, the act of not killing someone contains much more power than the act of killing someone.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 21 2005, 12:35 AM
I am unable to kill another human, I have no problems with ordering it though.
Dictating coward. <_<

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 21 2005, 12:17 PM
Would killing them achieve anything?

A person who has killed many, randomly, through xenophobia, or perhaps though capitalist economics...and plans to kill more, deserves to be dealt with. You can either trap him/her or kill him/her.

One option is cruel, the other sorts out a problem full stop.

Anyway if you haven&#39;t guessed, yes, I could kill people for a reason. Nazis, bourgeoisie, Fascists, Racists,

Afterall, they could kill me, im sure.

[Redmau5]

I think I could kill if it came down to the revolution. Also if someone killed or hurt any of my friends or family, or if someone fucked me over.

[4514]

If it came to it, I believe I would kill for our cause.
violence is unvoidable in our revolution, therefore killing is unavoidable.
killing a fellow person in say a pub fight? yes i probaly could maybe
not intentionally but when ya lose it ya lose it somtimes.
then again I haven’t raised my fists in anger for 3 years and have just taken the beating 3 times, im not to sure why. Just cant be bothered with senseless violence anymore.
4514
rank and file

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 21 2005, 12:35 AM
I am unable to kill another human, I have no problems with ordering it though.
thats sick



anyways yea i would kill to defend myself or other people, i will not allow someone to kill other people, especially not my friends.
Also to defend the revolution from especially foreign interventions, killing in defence is necessary.

[RedAnarchist]

I would only kill certains groups of people (Fascists, Nazis, Fundamentalists, Rascists etc) and in the event of a revolution. I would never kill a child and i would kill myself to defend any amount of people.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 20 2005, 10:16 PM

How would you feel about killing a fellow man?
Do you think you&#39;d be able to do it?

Yeah. I really don&#39;t see what&#39;s so bad about killing your "fellow man". I mean, obviously I see the problem with indiscriminate killing of random members of society and people that haven&#39;t perpetuated any harm, but I don&#39;t know why it is that people find it wrong to kill humans simply because they are humans.
I never understood that myself. Humans are the most dispicable animals on the planet and if any species deserves to be killed it is definetely the human species. The only way I could see people refusing to kill humans as making sense is if they also refused to kill other animals as well and are against killing anything in general.

[Publius]

I have a better question.

Why?

We&#39;re all atheists here, why does it matter?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 10:16 PM
I have a better question.

Why?

We&#39;re all atheists here, why does it matter?
What do you mean? would you not defend your family, friends and property with deadly force? Or are you saying it doesn&#39;t matter if we kill for a cause?

[Led Zeppelin]

Dictating coward.

Not really, would you call Lenin a coward for not killing anyone himself?


thats sick

It&#39;s more "sick" to kill people yourself.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Not really, would you call Lenin a coward for not killing anyone himself?


Not a coward, just a knob. :rolleyes:

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 21 2005, 10:46 PM

Dictating coward.

Not really, would you call Lenin a coward for not killing anyone himself?


yes actually, letting other people kill for you is the lowest act of cowardice. You tell other people to do something you cant or wont yourself, which is a characteristic of a dictator by the way.


by the way publius

"Scientists have wrapped copper wire around Guevara&#39;s body and surrounded him by magnets because he is turning over in his grave so fast due to the commercialization of his image that he now powers most of South and Central America by himself. He is thus the most prolific revolutionary in the history of the world, making over 200 revolutions per second. This is 192 rps faster than the second runner up, Robespierre who is said to have reached 8 revolutions per second during a particularly fierce figure skating competition with Mary Antoinette."

:lol: that made me laugh out loud

too bad you&#39;re a cappie, you seem to have a nice sense of humour...kinda like my uncle, the bourgeois fuck

[Led Zeppelin]

yes actually, letting other people kill for you is the lowest act of cowardice.

Not really, in modern times no "leader" kills people personally, they order it.

If you want "leaders" who kill people themselves go back to medieval times.

[Enragé]

yea and do you really want to know what i think of leaders? especially modern ones? Do you not yet know?

THEY SUCK, and yes they are cowards

i&#39;d call bush a coward
blair
berlusconi
balkenende?
yes those too

they sit in their houses while they send out people to kill, pillage, murder, rape and die.

(except balkenende, his soldiers run away :lol: )

[Decolonize The Left]

I agree, having other people kill for you is a pathetic form of cowardice. It either means you don&#39;t have the balls to do it yourself, or you&#39;re too afraid of the consequences, and either way, you are a coward.

Killing is wrong, that is a fact. But, if it comes down to it, if someone threatens you, your family, your friends/loved ones, or the revolution, I say it is necessary. But you need to do it. If you can&#39;t, for whatever reasons, don&#39;t take the next step down and have someone do it for you. How would you feel if instead of someone fighting you (when you both had reason) they had someone else come kick your ass instead? You would think them the lowest form of being, and you would be right. So don&#39;t be the hypocrit.

And yes, all leaders who send other people&#39;s children to die for any cause other than the people&#39;s cause is a coward, and a large one at that.

-- August

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 22 2005, 12:31 AM

yes actually, letting other people kill for you is the lowest act of cowardice.

Not really, in modern times no "leader" kills people personally, they order it.

If you want "leaders" who kill people themselves go back to medieval times.
So, does this mean you want to be a "leader?"

How communist of you. <_<

[Led Zeppelin]

So, does this mean you want to be a "leader?"

How communist of you.

Stop being so utopian.

As redstar2000 said, I want to be the next "Joe". :lol:

[Ele'ill]

Contrary to what the vacillating, wishy-washy pacifists will tell you, there are some types of people in the world who do not deserve to live.


wish washy pacifists would probably tell you the same however they&#39;d say there&#39;s nobody in this world at any given time that has the right to end another humans life unless their own life is in immediate danger. When someone has the right to choose who isn&#39;t worthy of living it becomse a dangerous situation. They might be right nine out of ten times in their choice to end a life but what about that other life they took?


Killing is wrong, that is a fact. But, if it comes down to it, if someone threatens you, your family, your friends/loved ones, or the revolution, I say it is necessary.

Ok I dont&#39; see a relation reguarding immediate threat to life when it comes to the revolution. At what stage do you take someone&#39;s life for threatening an ideological movment? Only in the armed conflict stage? In the planning stage? Who would be considered a threat, me, enemy soldiers, opposing political figures being anyone from news reporters to powerful politicians ? What about civilian sectors of resistance, the opposing side demonstrating in the streets? Maybe I misunderstood what you&#39;re saying and you simply meant any armed resistance that is at the time posing an immediate threat to you, family or friends. Not jumping down your throat on this i&#39;m just a little bit curious.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, I didn&#39;t make myself clear, I apologize and will now clarify.

I think we stand together on the issues of your life, your family, and your friends/loved ones.

As for the revolution, I meant that during the actual stage of armed revolutionaries seizing control of the government, I deem it ok to fire at enemies. And by enemies I mean people threatening the lives of the members of the revolution. Example: You, I and several others are storming a radio station and two armed people shoot at the others. Not you or me, but others with us, I would deem this the final scenario where you could take anothers life.

I hope that&#39;s more clear, if not, post again and I&#39;ll try futher.

-- August

[slim]

I would kill for what i believe to be the best for the rest of humanity. If i were forced to kill (which i would not do liberally as i see life as more important than anything else and is core to why i fight for leftist ideas) then it would be using direct methods that do not appear cowardly.

My willingness to kill for my cause also makes me accept the duty and responsiblity of dying for my cause if it means my cause would benefit and live on.

Slim. HRA.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 21 2005, 10:46 PM
Not really, would you call Lenin a coward for not killing anyone himself?



Of course I would, just because he&#39;s Lenin, he doesn&#39;t adopt some Godly ora that puts him in such a position that I consider him different from everyone else. He was a fucking human just like everyone else.


It&#39;s more "sick" to kill people yourself.

Is it? I don&#39;t think so, either way you are responsible for someone&#39;s death. However in the second instance not only does someone die as a result of you, but you forced an individual to do it for you. Its blatant cowardly fascism.

[Xian]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 20 2005, 06:32 PM
I&#39;ll post this here because i can&#39;t remember if i was restricted to OI last time i was here.

I&#39;m asking a simple question, like a poll but i would prefer a more indepth reply.

How would you feel about killing a fellow man?
Do you think you&#39;d be able to do it?
Would you do it to further a particular cause, and if so, in what circumstances, would they have to be attacking you? Would they have to conform to certain biological/social characteristics ie. male, over 18, actively capitalist?
Or would you take the pacifist approach and refuse to kill a fellow human being?


I&#39;ll go first as i posed the question. Personally i don&#39;t think i could kill anyone, i hope that humanity entails the potential for rising above the need to kill eachother even at the sacrifice of the self.

Reet, now open to anyone who wants to reply.
I agree with you. Most people can settle differences with words. Which is why I think that the "Revolution" will come over time in a peaceful way.

I would kill someone if they are oppressing someone without reason. For instance, if I had a gun on me and I see 10 cops beating up a kid to the point of near death, I&#39;m gonna open fire. Also if someone gets a life sentence w/o parole or something, and I&#39;m passionate enough about it, I&#39;m gonna kill to get them free and get them out. I would die for anyone at any time somone is in danger of death. I think this is an esential part of compassion. You will sacrifice yourself for someone else.

Peace.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 22 2005, 01:47 AM
stop being so utopian.
He wasn&#39;t beign utopian. Mujer Libre was right, it was not very communist of you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

wish washy pacifists would probably tell you the same however they&#39;d say there&#39;s nobody in this world at any given time that has the right to end another humans life unless their own life is in immediate danger. When someone has the right to choose who isn&#39;t worthy of living it becomse a dangerous situation. They might be right nine out of ten times in their choice to end a life but what about that other life they took?

I&#39;m sorry, but when one is cutting out necrotic flesh, you will always take some living tissue with you - perfection is an impossible goal. Pacifism is moral cowardice.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:12 PM

wish washy pacifists would probably tell you the same however they&#39;d say there&#39;s nobody in this world at any given time that has the right to end another humans life unless their own life is in immediate danger. When someone has the right to choose who isn&#39;t worthy of living it becomse a dangerous situation. They might be right nine out of ten times in their choice to end a life but what about that other life they took?

I&#39;m sorry, but when one is cutting out necrotic flesh, you will always take some living tissue with you - perfection is an impossible goal. Pacifism is moral cowardice.
Though I wouldn&#39;t generalize to that extent, well stated ;); we are only humans and can only act for the best result we perceive.

If we are uncertain, we can only pick what we see as the better of the options.

If we do not see a considerably good chance of our actions being productive; we should do all possible to perform better actions.

If I see someone as a threat, especially to me or the people/struggle in my life; I will do my utmost to implement any means necessary in stopping them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Though I wouldn&#39;t generalize to that extent, well stated ; ;) we are only humans and can only act for the best result we perceive.

Well, I put it in the best words I could think of, but hopefully people will get the general thrust of what I&#39;m saying

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

My loyalties are to the international working class. I would gladly kill for their cause. I would never kill, however, for country, family, god, money, etc.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 08:18 AM

I would kill to defend myself, my friends and my loved ones. No question.

Enough said.

-- August
This basically says it all.

And i&#39;d kill me a white supremist, without a second thought.

[bezdomni]

If it was necessary for a good cause, then I would do it. I would feel bad about it for the rest of my life though. Killing is not something anybody should want to do, but it is sadly a necessary thing sometimes.

If anybody has read For Whom the Bell Tolls, my stance is similar to Anselmo&#39;s on killing in a war situation.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 22 2005, 01:47 AM

Stop being so utopian.


now
the list of people who said that to me:

uncle (bourgeois)
mother (semi-bourgeois, red heart, cappie mind)
teacher (x2) (bourgeois)
classmate (of the most bourgeois kind)
state-education (school)
Marxism-Leninism

so i guess your bourgeois too?

so fuck you, go and dream about telling other people to kill for you, and leave the revolution to the rest of us. Cuz what you are aiming for, it wont be a revolution at all, it will be a change of guard at the top.


we are in this struggle to make sure that leaders will no longer exist

[guerillablack]

There will always be leaders. So you struggle will be an endless one.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:46 PM
There will always be leaders. So you struggle will be an endless one.
not true. There will be people who might have high regard, but they should have no official power attached to them. Therefore they would not be leaders.

And yes there will be representatives, but these will not have the power to do things the people who elected those representatives dont want.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Aug 22 2005, 07:55 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Aug 22 2005, 07:55 PM)
[email protected] 22 2005, 11:46 PM
There will always be leaders. So you struggle will be an endless one.
not true. There will be people who might have high regard, but they should have no official power attached to them. Therefore they would not be leaders.

And yes there will be representatives, but these will not have the power to do things the people who elected those representatives dont want. [/b]
leninist anarchist? and you dont believe in leaders with power, im confused ;)

[Enragé]

"leninist anarchist? and you dont believe in leaders with power, im confused "

joint the club, thats the whole point, im confused myself.

We need some sort of vanguard, as tool, as spearhead of the proletariate, to keep it awake sometimes. Every single organisation trying to liberate to proletariate is such a vanguard.
Plus imperialism simply IS the highest state of capitalism.

After the revolution, if shit really hits the fan (full scale war), we might need democratic centralism, but this should be done away with as soon as possible.
Ideally no such thing would be necessary, and decentralisation should commence immediately.
And the goal must always be, no gods no masters, nothing less than that.

Besides, most people who call themselves marxist-leninists are more like maoists and stalinists, authoritarian as hell.

[Xvall]

I never understood that myself. Humans are the most dispicable animals on the planet and if any species deserves to be killed it is definetely the human species. The only way I could see people refusing to kill humans as making sense is if they also refused to kill other animals as well and are against killing anything in general.

Entirely true, from a logical standpoint. But as humans, we would have to have some type of priority towards the rest of the planet (backed by some type of moral or religious principle) in order to actually feel that way and perpetuate such a goal.

[Led Zeppelin]

uncle (bourgeois)
mother (semi-bourgeois, red heart, cappie mind)
teacher (x2) (bourgeois)
classmate (of the most bourgeois kind)
state-education (school)
Marxism-Leninism

so i guess your bourgeois too?


Those are criticisms from the right, mine is from the left.


so fuck you

Someone give him a warning point for this.

[Xvall]

Lmfao.

[Decolonize The Left]

NewKindOfSoldier:
I agree with you that there should be no leaders. But there should also be no vanguard, for a vanguard is simply another form of supremacy. When you give one group of people more power than others, you are asking for corruption, abuse of power, and problems.

Do not stop being so utopian. It is only utopian people like us who develop the ideas that will shape the future. Let everyone else bicker and yell at each other about what is happening now and how horrible it is, and how others just don&#39;t understand. But we will think about what&#39;s to come, and how to reach our goal of a utopian society. The others will either see the truth, or be left bickering in a capitalist society.

In solidarity comrade,
August

Note: While I have not read any of Lenin&#39;s writings, I do know he was a dictator. He and his party changed their stance to get into power, and then turned on the people. And it all came back to Lenin, he made the decisions and the people suffered. I wouldn&#39;t follow his lead to form a new society...

[YoUnG192]

I am unable to kill another human, I have no problems with ordering it though.

Hitler thought the same.

[Led Zeppelin]

Hitler thought the same.

So did Lenin, your point?

Some people make it seem as if I want to order the killing of people, I am merely saying that ordering it is "less worse" then doing it.

[Decolonize The Left]

I am merely saying that ordering it is "less worse" then doing it.

Wrong. It is much, much, worse. Ordering it brings in the upmost coward in any man. If you think it is "less worse", you are a coward. Why can&#39;t you kill the man? Why do you need to order someone else to take someone&#39;s life? What is it that makes you so scared of doing it? Because it is only fear that makes you say what I quoted above. It is only fear that drives those ideas. So why are you afraid?

-- August

[Led Zeppelin]

Because it is only fear that makes you say what I quoted above.

I say that because killing someone is "gross".

You are probably a silly teen who thinks that killing someone in real life will be like in "Grand Theft Auto".


So why are you afraid?

I&#39;m not afraid at all.

Also, do you think I care when you call me a coward? If Lenin was a coward then I would want to be one too.

[Decolonize The Left]

I say that because killing someone is "gross".

You are probably a silly teen who thinks that killing someone in real life will be like in "Grand Theft Auto".

Your first statement makes you sound more like a teen than anything I have written. And if you cared to read any of my past posts in this thread, you would know my stance on killing, and it is not what you so sarcastically proposed.


I&#39;m not afraid at all.

Clearly you are. If can&#39;t kill someone yourself, but have no problem ordering someone else to do it, you are afraid to kill someone personally. And therefore I label you a coward, and rightly so.


Also, do you think I care when you call me a coward? If Lenin was a coward then I would want to be one too.

Lenin was a dictator who caused the suffering and deaths of thousands of people. And yes, he was also a coward.

-- August

[Led Zeppelin]

Lenin was a dictator who caused the suffering and deaths of thousands of people. And yes, he was also a coward.

I no longer have the desire to reply to your post, oddly enough.

[Forward Union]

I say that because killing someone is "gross".

You are probably a silly teen who thinks that killing someone in real life will be like in "Grand Theft Auto".

No im not, I&#39;ve never even played GTA, I don&#39;t tend to play computer games at all really. But I don&#39;t need to argue on this level, to someone, who thinks killing is gross; yet shows no concern when admitting they like to play Stalin and dictate the death of people from their luxurious villa.



If Lenin was a coward then I would want to be one too.

Oh sweet jesus....Why? have you lost all self respect that you cannot be yourself? Lenin was not a God, in fact in my opinion he spawned a degenerate idea, you should not spend your life constantly trying to live up to someone else, if you do that you either feel small and insignificant, or limit your success, either way your imprisoning your self respect, and imagination. The point is, you seem to be saying that you can&#39;t be yourself, which is a horrific, like those teenage kids that starve themselves to be super models. At this point in time I probably have less respect for you than most people on this forum, even less than the cappies.

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh sweet jesus....Why? have you lost all self respect that you cannot be yourself? Lenin was not a God, in fact in my opinion he spawned a degenerate idea, you should not spend your life constantly trying to live up to someone else, if you do that you either feel small and insignificant, or limit your success, either way your imprisoning your self respect, and imagination. The point is, you seem to be saying that you can&#39;t be yourself, which is a horrific, like those teenage kids that starve themselves to be super models. At this point in time I probably have less respect for you than most people on this forum, even less than the cappies.

Actually I don&#39;t care all that much about Lenin, he made some big mistakes, I am here to correct them.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 01:35 AM
If Lenin was a coward then I would want to be one too.

Actually I don&#39;t care all that much about Lenin, he made some big mistakes, I am here to correct them.

What happened? Loves me, loves me not...

[Led Zeppelin]

What happened?

What I said is not mutually exclusive.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 04:21 AM
What I said is not mutually exclusive.
You said that you want to emulate Lenin; then you said you don&#39;t care all that much about him :blink:

I want to be like Che&#33; Because I don&#39;t care about him&#33;

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 10:03 AM
Actually I don&#39;t care all that much about Lenin, he made some big mistakes, I am here to correct them.

If Lenin was a coward then I would want to be one too.

<_<

[Led Zeppelin]

I never said I wanted to be like Lenin in everything, I only said that if he was a coward then I want to be one too.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 10:38 AM
I never said I wanted to be like Lenin in everything, I only said that if he was a coward then I want to be one too.
Why just cowardice? and why Lenin?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 04:38 AM
I never said I wanted to be like Lenin in everything, I only said that if he was a coward then I want to be one too.
Right; you went to the effort to vehemently defend someone that you "don&#39;t care all that much about."

Nice story.

[Led Zeppelin]

Why just cowardice? and why Lenin?

Because obviously Lenin was not a coward.


Right; you went to the effort to defend someone that you "don&#39;t care all that much about."

Nice story.

Yes, is that so odd to you?

I don&#39;t care all that much about Stalin either, yet I defend him.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 10:43 AM
Because obviously Lenin was not a coward..
So if Lenin wasn&#39;t a coward, why did you admit to beign one?

[Led Zeppelin]

So if Lenin wasn&#39;t a coward, why did you admit to beign one?

WTF are you talking about?

[bombeverything]

Because obviously Lenin was not a coward.


I am unable to kill another human, I have no problems with ordering it though.

:lol:

Please tell me you are joking.

Isn&#39;t ordering the murder of another rather than actually doing it yourself a pathetic and cowardly act?


If you want "leaders" who kill people themselves go back to medieval times.

Why do we need leaders?

[Led Zeppelin]

Please tell me you are joking.


No.


Isn&#39;t ordering the murder of another rather than actually doing it yourself a pathetic and cowardly act?

No.


Why do we need leaders?

Who is "we"? The proletariat, the capitalists or the morons?

[OleMarxco]

You and I, perhap&#39;s togheter make we? ;)
This discussion&#39;s gone to the dog&#39;s - &#39;ris stupid as a kick-flip to&#39;re head&#33;
&#39;Tho, I must say, nevertheless, orderin&#39; a murder makes you more
weak than of a coward....atleast too physically-dependant on other&#39;s
to keel, &#39;cuz ye&#39;re too little body-developed in muscle&#39;s to wield a goddamn
gun and shoot&#33; Jeez, what&#39;s &#39;re problem, need more brain-powah, pr&#39;hap&#39;s? :P

I see no problem with killin&#39; for anythin&#39;, since there&#39;s no reason to kill for anythin&#39;,
or no divine authority stoppin&#39; us, &#39;cuz there&#39;s no "legal set of moral&#39;s". Just artifical...
But personally, I&#39;d restraint myself to killin&#39; fer a good cause, as for self-defense,
it&#39;s not even necessary to kill, just slug&#39;em off, what the fuck&#39;rat for a question n&#39;anschwah? Let&#39;s get back to&#39;re main-topic again, ya, I&#39;d beat the Burger-Ouise with a tap-dance &#39;ro fist&#39;s..and a colt, jus&#39;in case they get dirty n&#39;down :D

[CrimsonGhost]

Sure, if the cuase was for the greater good, whatever that means these days.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:32 AM
NewKindOfSoldier:
I agree with you that there should be no leaders. But there should also be no vanguard, for a vanguard is simply another form of supremacy. When you give one group of people more power than others, you are asking for corruption, abuse of power, and problems.

Do not stop being so utopian. It is only utopian people like us who develop the ideas that will shape the future. Let everyone else bicker and yell at each other about what is happening now and how horrible it is, and how others just don&#39;t understand. But we will think about what&#39;s to come, and how to reach our goal of a utopian society. The others will either see the truth, or be left bickering in a capitalist society.

In solidarity comrade,
August

Note: While I have not read any of Lenin&#39;s writings, I do know he was a dictator. He and his party changed their stance to get into power, and then turned on the people. And it all came back to Lenin, he made the decisions and the people suffered. I wouldn&#39;t follow his lead to form a new society...
not really, a vanguard is just an organisation striving towards revolution. Anarchist "groups" are the same, they just dont want to admit it.

This organisation should be a tool of the proletariate and its spearhead at the same time, people do sometimes need a wake up call. This does not mean the people should be under the command of that organisation, quite the opposite, such an organisation should be an example of true democracy.
After the revolution, the vanguard would probably dissappear in the already liberated areas, though democratic centralism could be necessary if the forces of reaction (foreign interventions etc) cannot be defeated through decentralised warfare.

Lenin was not the man he is portrayed as in history books. The image of "Lenin the Almighty" was invented by Stalin to justify his style of ruling, Lenin in fact often lost debates and therefore not everything lenin wanted happened.

But i agree lenin was a dubious figure. Anarchist philosopher Kropotkin once said about him:
"Vladimir Ilyich [Lenin], your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold."

and, comrade, no one can stop me from being utopian :)

oh and by the way

I don&#39;t care all that much about Stalin either, yet I defend him.

as you can see, lots of people who call themselves Leninist, are in fact maoist or even stalinist (in this case).

[Led Zeppelin]

and, comrade, no one can stop me from being utopian

That&#39;s a shame.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)


as you can see, lots of people who call themselves Leninist, are in fact maoist or even stalinist (in this case).


True, you make the mistake of distinguishing "Stalinists" from Leninists though.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 02:31 PM

and, comrade, no one can stop me from being utopian

That&#39;s a shame.

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm)


as you can see, lots of people who call themselves Leninist, are in fact maoist or even stalinist (in this case).


True, you make the mistake of distinguishing "Stalinists" from Leninists though.
what i meant was that no one can stop me from having the beliefs i have, which you call utopian, i dont consider them utopian at all, i consider them common sense.

and lenin thought stalin was a moron.

[Led Zeppelin]

and lenin thought stalin was a moron.

Prove this claim with an actual quote from Lenin.

[Enragé]

from lenin&#39;s testament:

Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution ...Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc. This circumstance may appear to be a negligible detail. But I think that from the standpoint of safeguards against a split and from the standpoint of what I wrote above about the relationship between Stalin and Trotsky it is not a [minor] detail, but it is a detail which can assume decisive importance.




which is a polite way of saying:

i dont like the fuck get rid of him before he fucks it all up

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:16 PM
And i&#39;d kill me a white supremist, without a second thought.
I&#39;d kill any kind of racial supremist.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 11:22 AM

Isn&#39;t ordering the murder of another rather than actually doing it yourself a pathetic and cowardly act?

No.


If you are incapable of doing a task, what fuckign right do you have to tell someoen else to do it?



Why do we need leaders?

Who is "we"? The proletariat, the capitalists or the morons?

&#39;We&#39; are the people.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 23 2005, 11:22 AM

Isn&#39;t ordering the murder of another rather than actually doing it yourself a pathetic and cowardly act?

No.


Please tell me you are joking.


No.


Isn&#39;t ordering the murder of another rather than actually doing it yourself a pathetic and cowardly act?

No.


Why do we need leaders?

Who is "we"? The proletariat, the capitalists or the morons?

Why? Because killing is "yukky" and you don&#39;t want to get your own hands dirty?

:rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

Why? Because killing is "yukky" and you don&#39;t want to get your own hands dirty?


Wow, you got it.

*claps


If you are incapable of doing a task, what fuckign right do you have to tell someoen else to do it?

They don&#39;t care.


&#39;We&#39; are the people.

Vague term, "the people" are divided into classes.

[Freedom Works]

"the people" are divided into classes.

Class &#33;= Caste

Which would you rather have, one where you can change your situation, or one where you are forever stuck in it?

I&#39;ll choose the former, but you can have a "revolution" for the latter if you wish.

[bombeverything]

Wow, you got it.

*claps

Pity you didn&#39;t.


Vague term, "the people" are divided into classes.

Yeah, and anyone with the power to do what you are promoting would be part of the ruling class.

Speaking about vagueness, could you... oh I don&#39;t know ... maybe try to justify your argument?

[Led Zeppelin]

Pity you didn&#39;t.

Obviously I "get it", because I am the one claiming this, stop trying to score debating points.


Yeah, and anyone with the power to do what you are promoting would be part of the ruling class.


Yes, after the revolution the proletariat.


Speaking about vagueness, could you... oh I don&#39;t know ... maybe try to justify your argument?


How about historical experience for justification?

[Xvall]

I don&#39;t see what was unusual about Marxist-Leninist&#39;s statement. A question was asked and he answered honestly with a reply that I&#39;m sure a good deal of people (though not necessarily those here) share. I don&#39;t think anyone is going to change his opinion. It seems reasonable, although possibly hypocritical or inhumane. It&#39;s a lot easier to order someone to go about killing people (Such as saying: "Kill any fascist you find.") than actually doing it.


maybe try to justify your argument?

I didn&#39;t know there was any argument taking place. He simply stated that he, although incapable of physically killing someone, wouldn&#39;t have a problem with telling someone to do this.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 24 2005, 12:11 AM

If you are incapable of doing a task, what fuckign right do you have to tell someoen else to do it?

They don&#39;t care.

Try ordering me to fucking kill for your Leninist dictatorship.

[bombeverything]

I just realised this myself Drake Dracoli. I always enjoy debating, but I realised that this was not really an argument, but more a "value" stance. Thus, nothing constructive could come out of this interaction. Which means that our posts could only degenerate to petty insults, or even worse: arguments about "morality" or "human rights".

Sorry about that ML.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sorry about that ML.

Apology accepted.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:50 AM
...this was not really an argument, but more a "value" stance.
Can you not argue "value" stances? :unsure:

[Decolonize The Left]

While Drake made a valid point that ML is merely stating his point-of-view, I think there is more to it.

We, as in the folks posting in response to his statements, were taking up arguments on his posts involving Lenin (and Leninism), and Stalin, among others. We were also posing valid questions, as to what constitutes cowardice, etc.. And I don&#39;t think we should be shunned for doing so.

For example, last page, ML posted this:

QUOTE
as you can see, lots of people who call themselves Leninist, are in fact maoist or even stalinist (in this case).


True, you make the mistake of distinguishing "Stalinists" from Leninists though.

I mean come on. He just contradicted the quote with his answer..
This is after his earlier contradiction in regards to emulating Lenin, which many took up voice over.

These are valid points to be made, and while they may not be as constructive as others, they still arn&#39;t pointless (no pun intended). ML has not justified any of his statements, nor has he offered any reasonably intelligent response to any questions/comments. Until this happens, we should feel free to tell him that he is contradicting himself, and to defend our point that he is a coward.

-- August

[Led Zeppelin]

I mean come on. He just contradicted the quote with his answer..
This is after his earlier contradiction in regards to emulating Lenin, which many took up voice over.


What he said had nothing to do with the topic at hand, so it was logical for me to not respond to it in length.


ML has not justified any of his statements, nor has he offered any reasonably intelligent response to any questions/comments.

Your questions are so absurd/childish that it is impossible to offer an "reasonably intelligent response" to them. And that is only referring to those questions which were on the topic at hand.

The argument basically comes down to the fact that you think you can kill people without even knowing what it&#39;s like, sure I thought the same as you.....when I was 11.

But when you order the death of someone else, someone you don&#39;t know, you can do it without caring too much about it. Like for instance I could order the death of Hitler, but I probably could not kill him myself. It&#39;s childish to say that Stalin was a coward because he wouldn&#39;t have killed Hitler himself.

Or that Lenin was a coward for not killing anyone, while ordering the deaths of others.

Basically, what you are saying is that if someone deserves the death penalty, everyone should kill him, because if he is killed by one person that would be "unfair".

I don&#39;t have time for such childish idiocy, so this will be my last post in this thread.

[Decolonize The Left]

What he said had nothing to do with the topic at hand, so it was logical for me to not respond to it in length.

Actually, he was addressing your previous statement, and so one can deduce that it does have to do with the topic at hand.


Your questions are so absurd/childish that it is impossible to offer an "reasonably intelligent response" to them. And that is only referring to those questions which were on the topic at hand.

I gather from this that you are refusing to justify any of your statements except for the ones in regards to the question &#39;would you kill for a cause".
Seeing as how that is the name of the thread, I think that that would make all subsequent posts on topic, or at least near topic, as they certainly evolved from a post on topic.
So you&#39;re refusing to justify your contradictive statements on Lenin, and Stalin?
Fair enough, take the ignorant denial route.


The argument basically comes down to the fact that you think you can kill people without even knowing what it&#39;s like, sure I thought the same as you.....when I was 11.

Clearly you read nothing of what I posted earlier. I have already stated my point of view on this topic, and it coincides with others, and they have re-iterated it many times. Unfortunately, you have failed to understand even the my most simply point, which is my stance on killing.


Basically, what you are saying is that if someone deserves the death penalty, everyone should kill him, because if he is killed by one person that would be "unfair".

Seeing as how I don&#39;t agree with the death penalty, not only is this point totally moot, but also unjustified.


I don&#39;t have time for such childish idiocy, so this will be my last post in this thread.

The words "childish idiocy" are a fitting choice of words with which to end your comments.

-- August

[bombeverything]

Can you not argue "value" stances? :unsure:

I guess you can try, but I don&#39;t know if it would really get us anywhere ... ?


We, as in the folks posting in response to his statements, were taking up arguments on his posts involving Lenin (and Leninism), and Stalin, among others. We were also posing valid questions, as to what constitutes cowardice, etc.. And I don&#39;t think we should be shunned for doing so.

You make a good point. That was not my intention. In reality I was only referring to my own posts which I felt were going nowhere. Sorry that I didn&#39;t make this clear.

[Enragé]

It&#39;s childish to say that Stalin was a coward because he wouldn&#39;t have killed Hitler himself.


Oh yes it is, you can not ask someone else to do something you would not do yourself, because that would be the highest form of cowardice


Basically, what you are saying is that if someone deserves the death penalty, everyone should kill him, because if he is killed by one person that would be "unfair".

no im saying that you CAN order the death of someone (if justified) if you are for example too busy to do it yourself, not because you just dont want your hands to get dirty.

[Decolonize The Left]

Good point NKoS, it&#39;s not about whether or not you can actually be there for the killing to do it yourself.

In the dealth penalty issue, if your in Britain and someone is put to death in Texas and you can&#39;t be there, why should you be punished?
But if you don&#39;t want to be there simply because killing is "yukky" and you&#39;re afraid of death, that&#39;s cowardice. And it is also wrong.

But in my humble opinion, all killing is wrong, dealth penalty inculded. This doesn&#39;t mean I won&#39;t kill, as stated previously, it just means I&#39;m opposed to it.

-- August

[Enragé]

all killing is wrong, dealth penalty inculded. This doesn&#39;t mean I won&#39;t kill, as stated previously, it just means I&#39;m opposed to it.


i agree

[Carmen]

I would kill someone in self-defence of if they hurt someone i loved. And i wouldn&#39;t stop till i got them. :angry:

[tambourine_man]

My loyalties are to the international working class. I would gladly kill for their cause. I would never kill, however, for country, family, god, money, etc.

i agree.
how any communist, or anyone on the revolutionary left, could be open to the idea of killing for family, that ancient and fundamental manifestation of private property, is beyond me. it is just as reactionary as killing for the nation, though not many seem to understand that.

[Enragé]

could be open to the idea of killing for family

err family are loved ones too you know

except my skinhead brother but that ain the point lol

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:29 PM

could be open to the idea of killing for family

err family are loved ones too you know

except my skinhead brother but that ain the point lol
Your brother&#39;s a skinhead?

[Anarchist Freedom]

I would kill for the revolution yes.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 29 2005, 10:09 AM
Would you kill yourself for the betterment of society?
For the most part, I don&#39;t even see how it is realistic for suicide to make the bettermetn of society possible; most people are not members of corrupt strata, the bourgeoisie, etc.

From tambourine_man:



i agree.
how any communist, or anyone on the revolutionary left, could be open to the idea of killing for family, that ancient and fundamental manifestation of private property, is beyond me. it is just as reactionary as killing for the nation, though not many seem to understand that.

Killing for family? That would probably be just some kind of reactionary slogan used against us. Most people&#39;s family members and such would be on the revolutionary side when socialism will shortly emerge.

[Commandante_Ant]

I really dont know if i could kill someone. Thats a tough question. I think, if it came down to killing someone for the liberation of my country or leave him alive and stay ruled for another 500 years, then i dont know what i would do. And thats something i&#39;ve never thought of before.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Aug 28 2005, 09:12 PM--> (Ownthink @ Aug 28 2005, 09:12 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 04:29 PM

could be open to the idea of killing for family

err family are loved ones too you know

except my skinhead brother but that ain the point lol
Your brother&#39;s a skinhead? [/b]
a rightwing biggot-ish skinhead, yep. But i think it was mostly drug and alcohol induced. He&#39;s in rehab now, and comes home every weekend, and since he quit drugs i havent heard him ask for a wall to be built a long our borders, or to remove all the muslim "goatfuckers" etc.
Perhaps he has at least seen thats complete bullshit...though i havent had a political conversation with him since he was admitted, so im not sure.

Oh and as far as i know he never beat anyone into a pulp or anything, just some cars lol. If he would have attacked an immigrant or something I&#39;d (try to) kick his ass.

[Decolonize The Left]

then again you CAN be a complete coward and kill

terrorists around the world prove that all the time.

Let me ask a question about this and I want a direct answer:

What is more cowardly:
Someone invades your country and you discover you can&#39;t fight them man for man (due to their technological superiority), so you decide you will sacrifice your life for your cause.

Or

You lie to the people of your country and send their children to die for no reason except you and your friends greed.

??

-- August

[EagleEyeNuñez]

Why are you talking about Bush? I didn&#39;t vote for Bush.

Suicide bombing is cowardly. You don&#39;t have to face the consequences of your actions because you&#39;re dead. It&#39;s a pussy move. A real pussy move.

Also, I find it extremely hilarious that armchair commies think they can even comprehend in the least bit what being President of the United States is like.

You&#39;re sitting in your house on a fucking computer. Get real. You don&#39;t know jack shit, you&#39;re just some Noam CHOMPsky lemming with a bleeding heart and guilt for no reason.

[Decolonize The Left]

Eagle Eye, Noam Chomsky knows more than you can ever dream of knowing. How dare you judge him, just as we don&#39;t know the president, you don&#39;t know Chomsky, hypocrite.

-- August

[EagleEyeNuñez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:24 AM
Eagle Eye, Noam Chomsky knows more than you can ever dream of knowing. How dare you judge him, just as we don&#39;t know the president, you don&#39;t know Chomsky, hypocrite.

-- August
I&#39;m judging what he says and what he says is bullshit. He was an important thinker in linguistics and then pretty much refuted his early work later. He is considered a joke in every intellectual circle at this point. He is obssessed with Reagan and hides behind his bullshit tenure. He is an America hater and a political simpleton. His black and white theories are tailored for the ears of gullible college students because anybody with any real world knowledge knows he&#39;s a quack.

That stupid idiot should have stuck to linguistics and left politics alone. He&#39;s a leftover fuckup hippy with an axe to grind.

Chomsky = left wing ideologue with politically bankrupt ideas.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yay&#33; More hypocrisy&#33; Man you are easy to respond to.


I&#39;m judging what he says and what he says is bullshit.

I judge what president Bush says, and I certainly think most is bullshit, or lies.


He is considered a joke in every intellectual circle at this point.

Hmmm, well this would imply that you are in every intellectual circle. I doubt this, based on your ignorant patriotic arguments...
So then, how do you know this? Did you join Bush and just, lie?


He is obssessed with Reagan and hides behind his bullshit tenure.

What? George W Bush is obsessed with Reagan and hides behins his bullshit tenure (and name)? Yes I know that is true.


He is an America hater and a political simpleton.

Wow, and American hater... What an argument&#33; Did you think of that yourself, or do you have a band of retarded monkeys working for you over there? That&#39;s some in-depth shit right there, and a fucking persuasive argument as well. I think there&#39;s only one word to summarize what someone is who uses the argument "America hater", and that word is, simpleton.


His black and white theories are tailored for the ears of gullible college students because anybody with any real world knowledge knows he&#39;s a quack.

Really? He tailors his theories? Well that sounds more like something a politician would do than a scholar, wouldn&#39;t you say? So this means Chomsky is either a politician, or you are lying. Gee, hard to guess isn&#39;t it after your "America hater" comment?


That stupid idiot should have stuck to linguistics and left politics alone. He&#39;s a leftover fuckup hippy with an axe to grind.

Chomsky = left wing ideologue with politically bankrupt ideas.

Well I&#39;m sad you stopped here, it was very amusing. Let&#39;s review what you have called Chomsky in nine sentences:
A speaker of bullshit, a joke, bullshit, America hater, political simpleton, tailorer of theories, quack, stupid idiot, leftover fuckup hippy, left wing ideologue...

Wow, that&#39;s more than one insult for every sentence. Makes you seem like you really know what you&#39;re talking about.
Well done, and so I&#39;ll stoop to your level, as you probably didn&#39;t understand what just happened.

You are a right wing, blindly patriotic, ignorant, simpleton, who can&#39;t articulate points so you insult the person instead of formulating intelligent ideas.

Uh-oh, some of those words were more than two syllables, you gonna be ok?

-- August

[YoUnG192]

Mostly everyone here is willing to kill for a cause but talk means nothing. When you have the weapon in your hand things will change.

[Ele'ill]

If I see someone as a threat, especially to me or the people/struggle in my life; I will do my utmost to implement any means necessary in stopping them

Have you done this yet? People are dying because of american policy and you&#39;re still here talking about it. I guess everyone here is a coward as your ideology is constantly being attacked and threatend.


I&#39;m sorry, but when one is cutting out necrotic flesh, you will always take some living tissue with you - perfection is an impossible goal. Pacifism is moral cowardice.

America&#39;s perspective on fallujah, south america the middle east etc... . Just like Bush&#39;s war on terror. Colateral damage is OK. Pacifism is cowardice to your morals, which states just how violently weak your morals are.


Mostly everyone here is willing to kill for a cause but talk means nothing. When you have the weapon in your hand things will change

You know it. ;)

[she9]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:42 PM


You are a right wing, blindly patriotic, ignorant, simpleton, who can&#39;t articulate points so you insult the person instead of formulating intelligent ideas.

Uh-oh, some of those words were more than two syllables, you gonna be ok?

-- August

I judge what president Bush says, and I certainly think most is bullshit, or lies.

And your point is? Is this a Bush vs. Chomsky thing? What kind of drugs are you taking? I didn&#39;t vote for Bush.


Hmmm, well this would imply that you are in every intellectual circle. I doubt this, based on your ignorant patriotic arguments...
So then, how do you know this? Did you join Bush and just, lie?

More Bush? What does Bush have to do with ME? :lol: If you were my age you would have seen the evolution in the way people view Chomsky. Ignorance is blliss.


What? George W Bush is obsessed with Reagan and hides behins his bullshit tenure (and name)? Yes I know that is true.

I repeat, what does Bush have to do with me? Maybe you should take this argument to a Republican.


Wow, and American hater... What an argument&#33; Did you think of that yourself, or do you have a band of retarded monkeys working for you over there? That&#39;s some in-depth shit right there, and a fucking persuasive argument as well. I think there&#39;s only one word to summarize what someone is who uses the argument "America hater", and that word is, simpleton.

Chomsky hates America. Even his supporters know as much. Obviously all you know is that he hates America. But wait, you&#39;re saying he doesn&#39;t hate America. I guess you really don&#39;t know anything about him.


Really? He tailors his theories? Well that sounds more like something a politician would do than a scholar, wouldn&#39;t you say? So this means Chomsky is either a politician, or you are lying. Gee, hard to guess isn&#39;t it after your "America hater" comment?

He refuted earllier theories that made him famous. He called it an "evolution" of his linguistic theory. And, btbw, if you have been alive over the last 35 years, you&#39;d see how political that twit really thinks he is. :lol:


You are a right wing, blindly patriotic, ignorant, simpleton, who can&#39;t articulate points so you insult the person instead of formulating intelligent ideas.

Uh-oh, some of those words were more than two syllables, you gonna be ok?

1. Your ideas are those of a 15 year old. They may SEEM intelligent to YOU but nobody else.

2. 2 syllable words eh? Tell me, what is your education? Where did you get your Masters? What was your thesis? if no Master&#39;s or PhD, where did you get your undergrad?

3. How many foreign countries have you lived in?

4. How many times have you done research from the FRUS volumes or the Congressional Record?

5. How many presidential libraries have you visited for primary source documents?

I&#39;ll be awaiting your replies.

Thank you.

[Decolonize The Left]

Firstly, she9, my comments were directed at Eagle Eye. I was responding to his earlier posts, and none of my comments about Bush were directed at you, as I will later show. Therefore, the following quotes are out of context as they were the result of a misunderstanding:
"I didn&#39;t vote for Bush."
"What does Bush have to do with ME?"
"I repeat, what does Bush have to do with me?"

I&#39;m sorry you misunderstood my post. You have all the right to defend your point of view about Chomsky, but your comments on my addressing Bush are not necessary and are out of place. I will explain how they came about, and will address the Chomsky afterwords.

Here is why I brought Bush into this, well actually I didn&#39;t, Eagle Eye did with the following post:

Also, I find it extremely hilarious that armchair commies think they can even comprehend in the least bit what being President of the United States is like.

From this I developed the argument that it would be hypocritical to claim that we do not understand Bush, while claiming to understand Chomsky. Which he did, here:

You don&#39;t know jack shit, you&#39;re just some Noam CHOMPsky lemming with a bleeding heart and guilt for no reason.
He continues on to insult Chomsky based on "judging he says". I then replied that this is also hypocritcal, as I judge Bush by what he says in the same manner.
I was not insinuating that anyone voted, or supports, Bush. But I was saying that is not fair to state that we can&#39;t know what the President is like, while claiming to know what Chomsky is like. We both have the right to judge from our experiences, that is all I was saying. I&#39;m sorry if it was interpreted differently, my mistake.

As for your comments, she9, I will address them now.


Chomsky hates America. Even his supporters know as much. Obviously all you know is that he hates America. But wait, you&#39;re saying he doesn&#39;t hate America. I guess you really don&#39;t know anything about him.

Your first three sentences are statements that claim your knowledge of many people&#39;s thoughts and opinions. I find this doubtful, and a poor argument.
Your fourth sentence is a correct assumption.
Your fifth sentence is another faulty assumption based of speculation and is unjustified.
There is nothing further to respond to here.


He refuted earllier theories that made him famous. He called it an "evolution" of his linguistic theory.

As I do not know whether or not he refuted earlier theories, I will take your word on this. But I find your second sentence to be pointless. I will offer an analogy to demonstrate my point:
Many people once believed the world was flat. This has long since been refuted for the statement that the world is a sphere, and is an "evolution" of theory.
How is Chomsky&#39;s position different? Perhaps because we now know, thanks to science, that the world is not flat. But theories of linguistics are just that, theories, they have not been accepted or refuted based on evidence. Therefore it is impossible to claim them as flase and to assault someone for changing their theories, or letting them "evolve".


1. Your ideas are those of a 15 year old. They may SEEM intelligent to YOU but nobody else.

After misunderstanding my original statement, and then subsequently replying to three other statements with the same response, and after responding to another statement with nothing of content, then finally responding to another statement with speculation claiming to be fact, I don&#39;t see how you have any right to insult my ideas.


2. 2 syllable words eh? Tell me, what is your education? Where did you get your Masters? What was your thesis? if no Master&#39;s or PhD, where did you get your undergrad?

My education: Currently enrolled in a four-year liberal arts college.
Masters: None, am currently an undergraduate.
Thesis: See above.
Undergrad: See above.


3. How many foreign countries have you lived in?

I have not "lived" in any foreign countries if to "live" is to take up residence for a large amount of time. I have traveled to Mexico, France, and Tahiti, as well as traveled a fair amount of the US. As you might imagine, being an undergraduate, I have not had the time to "live" in any foreign countries, as I have been involved in my education at home.


4. How many times have you done research from the FRUS volumes or the Congressional Record?

FRUS volumes: 0 times
Congressional Record: 0 times


5. How many presidential libraries have you visited for primary source documents?

None.

Before I end, I would like to address your final five questions. In response to these questions, I would like to demonstrate the "evolution" of your arguments:
Stage 1: Misinterpret information.
Stage 2: Respond to 3 statements with same answer, based on misinterpretation.
Stage 3: Respond to statement with no information of any value.
Stage 4: Respond to statement with little value.
Stage 5: Resort to comparing educational backgrounds as well as histories as an attempt to claim superiority over another, after the utter failure of refuting an argument.

I have humored you with the answers to your final questions, even if I found them to be rooted in insecurity. I have nothing to hide, I am merely a student interested in Anarchism and Communism.

-- August

[hasilto]

uhhhh she6 & eagle eye= same person

signed,

duh

[Freedom Works]

2. 2 syllable words eh? Tell me, what is your education? Where did you get your Masters? What was your thesis? if no Master&#39;s or PhD, where did you get your undergrad?
3. How many foreign countries have you lived in?
4. How many times have you done research from the FRUS volumes or the Congressional Record?
5. How many presidential libraries have you visited for primary source documents?
Ugh, people like this make me sick.

[hasilto]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 1 2005, 07:06 AM

2. 2 syllable words eh? Tell me, what is your education? Where did you get your Masters? What was your thesis? if no Master&#39;s or PhD, where did you get your undergrad?
3. How many foreign countries have you lived in?
4. How many times have you done research from the FRUS volumes or the Congressional Record?
5. How many presidential libraries have you visited for primary source documents?
Ugh, people like this make me sick.
Who makes you sick, somebody who is educated?

Maybe when you actually achieve more than a GED you can address me. Until that time, shut your hole and speak only when spoken to. :lol:

[Freedom Works]

People who think they are &#39;educated&#39; because of what they have supposedly done. You have to earn my respect, you cannot just claim it.

But still, the funny part is I don&#39;t even have a GED.

[Decolonize The Left]

uhhhh she6 & eagle eye= same person

signed,

duh

Well thank you. Obviously I wasn&#39;t aware of this, and your sarcasm isn&#39;t appreciated.


You have to earn my respect, you cannot just claim it.

Bingo.

-- August

[dave spart]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 1 2005, 09:48 AM
People who think they are &#39;educated&#39; because of what they have supposedly done. You have to earn my respect, you cannot just claim it.

But still, the funny part is I don&#39;t even have a GED.
hasilto was just asking questions. he never said he did all those things.

You don&#39;t have a GED? You&#39;re just a drop out with no education at all?

What, are you going to work in a restaurant your whole life?

[Free Palestine]

Chomsky hates America. Even his supporters know as much. Obviously all you know is that he hates America. But wait, you&#39;re saying he doesn&#39;t hate America. I guess you really don&#39;t know anything about him.

As Chomsky often points out, anti-Americanism is a mindless slogan. If he criticizes Portugal’s foreign policy, does that make him anti-Portuguese? Chomsky blames not the American people, but major government officials and transnational corporations for the crimes of the national security state. He provides overwhelming documentation from the business press, supplemented by the findings of human rights organizations and church groups to substantiate his claims.


He is considered a joke in every intellectual circle at this point.

Actually, he is very likely the most important intellectual in the world alive right now, and you&#39;re just hot air. Damn him all you want. He&#39;s still ranked with Einstein and Gallileo in regards to his genius, has revolutionised linguistics and reversed US foreign policy. He&#39;s also cited more than any other living author, and is the eighth most cited person in history, right after Sigmund Freud. So it&#39;s no surprise his constant criticism and stripping away of the layers of propaganda in terms of US foreign policy has gained him many enemies among neo-cons such as yourself. You are a blowhard and any "intellectual circle" would dismiss YOU almost instantly.


Suicide bombing is cowardly. You don&#39;t have to face the consequences of your actions because you&#39;re dead. It&#39;s a pussy move. A real pussy move.

Calling suicide bombers “cowards” may not be the best way to describe them. They may be misguided, but sacrificing one’s own life for a cause has never been called cowardice. And using words such as cowards doesn’t answer the question of why they occurred, unless one thinks every coward and madman wants to blow themselves up.

Those descriptions help prevent people from discovering the reason why the event actually occurred. And if we want to prevent such occurrences from happening in the future, it is absolutely vital to understand “why”. Maybe a good question to ask is why those “cowardly” people never attack Switzerland or Sweden? What could it be that these countries do, or don’t do that causes them to be ignored while Israel and the US are targeted.

Could it be because they know that almost every bomb that kills their people comes from America? That every bullet, every blank, every fighter plane, is manufactured or paid for my American dollars of support that have enabled the Zionist state to terrorize the Arab people for half a century?

[Freedom Works]

You don&#39;t have a GED? You&#39;re just a drop out with no education at all?
Formal &#39;education&#39; does not indicate intelligence.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Freedom [email protected] 1 2005, 03:34 PM

You don&#39;t have a GED? You&#39;re just a drop out with no education at all?
Formal &#39;education&#39; does not indicate intelligence.
I cannot tell you how much this is true.

[Decolonize The Left]

Thank you Free Palestine, for providing your comments. They were appreciated.

And yes, formal education does not indicate intelligence, unfortunately, it does help with employment in society.

-- August

[dave spart]

Originally posted by Free [email protected] 1 2005, 06:55 PM
Actually, he is very likely the most important intellectual in the world alive right now, and you&#39;re just hot air.
I&#39;m sorry, i was laughing too hard at this and it&#39;s taking me a few minutes to respond.

Anyway, Chomsky is considered a crazy loon by liberals and conservatives alike.

Don&#39;t take my word for it, look it up. Start with Paul Berman.

Just because the guy is spouting about good vs. evil constantly, it makes it easy for younger, less worldly people to think he&#39;s great. He comes across as anit-establishment while he sits up at MIT insulated by his tenure. He&#39;s been frothing at the mouth over the U.S. for decades, all while pulling a fat paycheck. He&#39;s got the right demographic for brainwahsing people too, college students.

He&#39;s a one dimensional buffoon Charles Manson makes about as much sense as him.

genius in linguistics at one time, yet an amateur at politics and foreign affairs and sadly at this point, completely irrelevant.

but hey, you keep on admiring him and his agenda, the world needs its lemmings.

[dave spart]

intelligence you&#39;re born with

education is what you get from education

learning how to study, how to write etc

how to DECIPHER WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT IS BULLSHIT

for instance, from my short time here I can tell that most of the people here lack the first thing you need to know when reading any history or political commentary/op-ed piece etc:

CONSIDER THE SOURCE and the possible agenda of the SOURCE

Do you think castro is going to be critical of his regime? :lol: of course not. Is the US going to give Castro props on his regime? of course not. :lol:

Aa usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

That&#39;s why believing one side blindly is foolish and naive.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don&#39;t think you can claim that we all &#39;only believe in Chomsky&#39;, as that is a close-mided statement in itself.

I don&#39;t only believe Chomsky, but I do consider him to be an intellectual, and a respectable one at that. I also read other authors, as much as I can, and develop opinions from the combination of them all.

Just because Chomsky happens to critique America, strongly at that, doesn&#39;t mean everyone has to get their panties in a wad and start yelling about how he is a cook.

Dissent is the basis of democracy, and America for that matter. If Chomsky is more intelligent than most dissenters, and happens to make a strong point or two, good for him. He is doing what all Americans should do, question their government.

Not role over like lapdogs, or follow blindly like sheep.

-- August

[Ele'ill]

Wow did this thread get jacked.

[CoyoteCzarfish]

I think people should always question their surroundings, but I think sometimes the actual intelligence of a government is over/underestimated. Democracies are easily tainted and everything, but rarely looked at with any sense of a possibility of them not trying to screw everyone over. At least not the US anyway. But that&#39;s pretty much what you have to respsectfully live with when you give everyone their rights.

I couldn&#39;t ever kill anyone randomly, I wouldn&#39;t want to kill anyone, but I would if the situation called for it. I don&#39;t find human life all that special, I just don&#39;t like the thought of killing someone&#39;s son or daughter. I wouldn&#39;t do it to further a cause, at least not directly. Anything that wants to just kill people off could do the same to me tomorrow.

[Free Palestine]

Just because the guy is spouting about good vs. evil constantly, it makes it easy for younger, less worldly people to think he&#39;s great.

Chomsky’s work is remarkably free of moralizing, in preference for a massive adducement of relevant factual detail supplemented by a powerful analysis. He consistently encourages people to pay careful attention to the reasoning and world view of those in power, not just those who happen to agree with one’s own point of view.


Anyway, Chomsky is considered a crazy loon by liberals and conservatives alike.

Pure idiotic fantasy. I already showed you how weak this myth of yours was but it seems you already forgot. As I said, he&#39;s cited more than any other living author, and is the eighth most cited person in history (after Sigmund Freud). This should give you some sort of clue as to the massive intellectual impact Chomsky has made.


Don&#39;t take my word for it, look it up. Start with Paul Berman.

Gladly. Take Hilary Putnam, one of Chomsky&#39;s most virulent and fierce critics. She writes that when reading Chomsky you are "struck by a sense of great intellectual power, one knows one is encountering an extraordinary mind." See? Not even right-wing scum dispute his genius. :D


CONSIDER THE SOURCE and the possible agenda of the SOURCE

It&#39;s awful hard to deny Chomsky when he provides overwhelming documentation from the business press, official record, and declassified documents, supplemented by the findings of human rights organizations and church groups to substantiate his claims.

Once again, you&#39;re just hot air. Go find another day job.

[amaru]

Adelante con Chomsky :)

[upstanding conservative]

Who do you think deserves to die more a capitalist buisness owner or a communist child molester?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Neither. Paedophiles are mentally ill, and need to be placed in an environment where they will not come into contact with children.

The business owner doesn&#39;t need to die. He can merely have his assets placed under democratic control. He then has the choice of joining his former employees or working somewhere else.

Next loaded question.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by upstanding [email protected] 2 2005, 09:26 PM
Who do you think deserves to die more a capitalist buisness owner or a communist child molester?

neither. but if one had to be put in jail or locked away somewhere, i&#39;d choose the child molestor any day

[farleft]

Yes, I would kill for a cause.

ALL communists would kill for a cause, if you disagree you are a psuedo-communist and no comrade of mine.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:43 PM
Yes, I would kill for a cause.

ALL communists would kill for a cause, if you disagree you are a psuedo-communist and no comrade of mine.
So just who the fuck are you to place judgement on people here? I can only respect those who do not kill, or at least try to avoid having to do it for as long as possible, and those who do not send others to kill for them. I&#39;ve said it before, those who talk cold-bloodedly about killing(ironically, most of those have never even held a gun...) will end up to be the cruel mercenaries of the counter-revolution when they realise that the revolution will not necessarily give them more blood.

As for myself, I would only do it to defend myself, those close to me or the proletariat against counter-revolutionary forces.

[farleft]

When you are older and wiser, experiance abit more of life for yourself, reality will kick in and that youthful optamism will be kicked out, its not your fault but just try to think three-dimentionally in future.
You know what they say about assumptions? thats right, the mother of all fuck ups.

I stand by my statement, which is not a judgement, there was no judgement being placed on anyone.

Once again, I stand by my statement.

[KC]

As for myself, I would only do it to defend myself, those close to me or the proletariat against counter-revolutionary forces.


So then you would kill for communism. Stop trying to avoid the issue.

[FleasTheLemur]

This thread sounds way too much like fascist bait to merit an answer from me. Any of ya&#39;ll heard of pre-meditated murder?

[Militant]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:43 PM
Yes, I would kill for a cause.

ALL communists would kill for a cause, if you disagree you are a psuedo-communist and no comrade of mine.
We have a violent ideology, and as such I would be prepared to bring violence to our class enemies.

Otherwise you&#39;re a socialist. :lol:

[Ownthink]

I would readily and enjoyably slaughter Imperialists if it meant saving innocent lives or advancing the cause of equality and justice.


Which it does.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Yes.

If the person is a threat to loved ones.

If the person has caused the death and or misery of many.

If the person is a CEO ;)

[drain.you]

Theres no question of the fact that when the revolution begins, I will answer its call and fight my class enemies. I will kill those who do not promote equality. I will kill those who promote sexism/racism and other discrimination. And I will be proud. However, I will only kill for the revolution and for a better society - ie; I&#39;m not going to randomly go and kill factory managers and such unless it will benefit the course of the revolution.
But yes, I would kill for the cause of revolution, for the cause of equality and for the cause of freedom. And Like Altas Swallowed mentioned, I too would kill to protect a loved one.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

I&#39;d kill for Communism, yes. Full stop.

Now there&#39;s a clear answer without avoiding the issue :rolleyes:

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Funky [email protected] 20, 2005 11:14 pm
I&#39;ll post this here because i can&#39;t remember if i was restricted to OI last time i was here.

I&#39;m asking a simple question, like a poll but i would prefer a more indepth reply.

How would you feel about killing a fellow man?
Do you think you&#39;d be able to do it?
Would you do it to further a particular cause, and if so, in what circumstances, would they have to be attacking you? Would they have to conform to certain biological/social characteristics ie. male, over 18, actively capitalist?
Or would you take the pacifist approach and refuse to kill a fellow human being?


I&#39;ll go first as i posed the question. Personally i don&#39;t think i could kill anyone, i hope that humanity entails the potential for rising above the need to kill eachother even at the sacrifice of the self.

Reet, now open to anyone who wants to reply.
i kill nationalists in cause to deffend my own life

[Jazzratt]

Another thread from two years ago, why the fuck are you resurrecting them?