Originally posted by
[email protected] 03, 2007 12:01 am
Jazzrat.
I refuted his Commie ideals point for point, and all he comes back w/ are ad-hominems and name-calling. Gee, you showed me. *yawn*
AAAAAAAAAAARGH! Everytime someone misuses the term 'ad-honem' I have to kill something.
A personal attack does not automatically constitute an ad-honiem, an ad-hominem is an argument that attacks anothers position soley on the basis of the person putting forward that position. My insults were not being used in any way to discredit you, they were there simply for my own amusment.
As for the "OH NOES NAME CALLING" shite, you'd do best to look into the style over substance fallacy.
I know, you don't like when your commie ego isn't being stroked, b/c I'm here to dismantle and show the fallacies and dishonesty of your Communist beliefs. Oh wow, we've got another pretentious one, lucky us.
I especially liked how Jazzrat showed his true Blood Red Commie colours when he said he wanted to "shoot 200 rich people in the face and take their money". Wow, I even attatched an arbitary number to it but you still didn't get at the underlying irony. Tell me, does it get hard living with termites eating at your brain?
Yeah, sounds like you're letting off a bit of steam, but I can just tell by your biggoted comments Bigoted against whom?
that it's not too far from the truth. I know, money is bad. Well done, we all recognise money is bad.
Being rich is bad, For the most part, yes as it's the rich that own the means of production currently and thhus are exploiting us.
the Cappies are all out to get you, No they aren't.
go live in a cave, sir. That is completely paranoid and delusional thinking. :wacko: I never stated that the capitalists were out to get me or any other statements that would point to paranoia you puddle of wasted sperm.
Now just b/c I'm above the stupid and childish name-calling doesn't inherently make my stand on Communism/Capitalism any better Then why is the first half of this section of your little rant an attack on the "childish" name calling- as if it does anything to discredit my position.
- it's my evidence and refutation of the false and brutal nature of Communism that does, however. This would be the refutation you haven't written, yes? Because it can't have been the piece of shit you offered beforehand.
ok ok, I'm done diggin at Jazzrat... ;) It wasn't an amazing 'dig' as it relied mostly of a style over substance argument and a stupid ad hominem based on your deranged
Anyway I'm not going to bother to address him anymore, b/c I didn't come on here to have a pissing contest w/ a (seemingly) immature child. Oh deary me, I'm so offended that some pissant decided to whinge about my post, not reply to any of the points and then declare they wouldn't whinge about any of my subsequent posts. <_<
I'm generally feeling the same thing: hatred, distrust, bigotry, contempt and just outright hate for Capitalism.
It's sad and ironic really. If you live in the Western World it's generally thanks to Capitalism that you have what you have. Marxism recognises this, fucknut. Capitalism is not some inherently 'evil' thing. It's just flawed compared to the alternatives.
It's allowed you to choose to shop at a wide variety of stores, Oh joy. I'll just go inform all the communist groups fighting for the liberation of their nations that "It's okay, we can buy the same shite in a wide variety of different places - we need no equality or a rational system of government. All we need is some fucking shops.".
to get a job in just about literally anything you like, It also allows you to lose your job when a machine is judged to be more effeciaent and then stay at the bread line for years at a time whilst looking for places that will employ you with your limited skillset. Personally I'd like to get a job in sitting on my arse all day writing memos but it appears the bosses already have that one covered.
to pursue what you want to do....as long as you've got the cash.
However, the W.W. isn't truely Capitalist, it's a mixed economy. Socialism is everywhere, forcing companies to pay tariffs, taxes, regulation fees, min wages, etc. etc. (hint: forcing companies to pay all this actually HURTS the common man, b/c companies can't afford to hire them). Unfettered capitalism is an even worse idea. Just look at sweatshops - factories and so on that exist where there is very little regulation, where the workforce can't unionise and where companies can be relied upon to constantly make use of the most savage means possible to keep their workers in line. The only reason they have the "benevolance" to provide a living wage is so that their workers are alive to do back breaking work for them the next day.
And please... please, don't come back w/ the regurgitated and tired old fallacy "well it's you rich westerners that are trampling over the rest of the world". Total fallacy. Really? What type of fallacy - deductive or inductive for a start?
Commies love to use fear mongering, hatred and outright lies to push their ideals. Hey, I live in Canada. I guess us, the evil Great White North are somehow trampling over say, Cuba or N. Korea. Well there's the US embargo on cuba, the vicious neo-liberal world market that stacks the odds in the favour of the western oppressor nations - then of course you've got the nations where "first world" corporations can get cheap, brutalised labour without nasty things like "human decency" to get in the way.
Hilarious. No, it's their own gov't's, their own dictators that are doing so. I think you're the first idiot cappie I've had to deal with that believes the global market has no real effect on any nations. Oh yes, and that debt the nations of Africa owe? It's a set of meaningless numbers on which first world economies rely (because cancelling the debt would cripple them) but is used to hobble any hopes most African nations have of becoming anything other than playgrounds for abusive buissiness conglomerates of the international bourgeoisie.
Just Remember:
Oh, I know these (N. Korea, Cuba) aren't "true" Communist regimes. (but guess what, they will never change their tyrranical, totalitarian methods, their leaders will never, ever give up the power to create your fabled "stateless" society) Isn't it interesting these countries who whole-heartedly claim to strive for Communism are also the most absolutely brutal, and impoverished places to live. Neither of those nations really claim anything of the sort, Cuba is socialist but never set out to instate communism - it is however a free and prosperous nation (unless you're in the habit of swallowing whatever some gusano tells you.) whereas North Korea is under some crackpot ideology known as Juche which bears as much resembelance to communism as whatever 'ideology' America follows does to democracy - all the right words are there, they're just rendered meaningless by the system.
Communism is not only slavery, but a nanny-state. Let's look at this sentence in depth before we continue on your idiot diatribe. First claim: Slavery. Now this is a big scary word that capitalists occaisonally wheel out when they sense they might be losing an argument, it's so emotionally affecting isn't it? Conjours up images of slave ships, plantations and overseers - all products, one should note, of capitalism. The main aim of your average capitalist idiot in using this term is to set up an emotional response, but it is not grounded in any logic. No one in a communist system is forced to work, unlike feudalism, slavery or (surprisingly) capitalism. WHAT?! I hear our poor capitalists bleat hoplessly, BUT YOU ARE FREE TO CHOOSE, IN OUR GLORIOUS SYSTEM, but what is this 'choice we have? We can work or we can starve to death. Work or die. Work or die - now does that sound like a non-coercive choice to you? Not only is capitalism a big casino but you're chained to the slot machines. Fucking marvelous. Now we have the term nanny-state, we all know what it means a state that passes laws preventing personal freedoms for the good of its people. My first quibble is semantic, it can't be a nanny-state if it's stateless, can it? Secondly, and more importantly, the only laws that really apply in communism are ones against crimes such as rape or murder. Some laws will govern possesions but there will be none to cover property because there will be no property. As for things like drugs laws and so on - no communist I know of advocates any kind of controls on such things.
It thinks IT knows what's best for YOU. Sorry, I'm a big boy, I know what's best for me thank-you very much. I know it's best to treat others how I'd like to be treated, to voluntarily (not being robbed via taxes) give to my fellow man in need. How dare you, be you a robber w/ a gun, or a bureaucrat in gov't, try and force me to do something against my will. You know what's best for you, I know what's best for me. Leave me alone. The second part of this adorable rant is even less lucid, our cappie cretin ventures into the wrold of argument by making an assertion 'it thinks IT knows what's best for YOU', which is good but then he wonders off completely and appears to have forgotten he left his assertion all on its own without any supporting evidence. Poor little assertion got cold and died without the warm blanket of a supporting statement. It almost looks like he's going to back it up with some examples, but all he can think up is taxation - which is not part of communism, what with it being a moneyless system.
Also, someone brought up homelessness. Again, Capitalism is honest, it doesn't guarantee a home to everyone. Brilliant. Next time I see a homeless person I'll say to them "You know the system that denied you a home is utterly fantastic because it never garunteed you a home! Isn't that great!"
Communism is dishonest b/c it somehow thinks that it is going to get money out of nowhere and guarantee homes for everyone. No it doesn't, it doesn't - it recognises that nothing requires money to create and therfore there is no sensible reason for everyone not to have a home. To break this claim down to the capitalist mouth breather I'll give a simple example. You want a sandwhich so what do you use? Two slices of bread, some (for example) lettuce, a bit of ham maybe a dash of mustard - at no point does money come into it until you have to aquire these items. But it is not the money that is necessary, it is the bread, lettuce, ham and mustard.
Commies want someone else to look after them, to "guarantee" their standard of living. They don't like personal responsibility and the risk of having to work for only themselves. In a Capitalist (free) market you are going to have LESS homelessness, yes, LESS. Wait, I thought the evil commies wanted to commit the great crime of looking after other people, now they expect people to look after them? It sounds either like your confused or have accidentally discovered that we advocate a system whereby the relationship between humans should be symbiotic rather than parasitic (as it is in capitalism). Then he makes the strange claim that in a free market, where there is no more real incentive to build houses than cars or watches, there will be less homeless than in a rationally planned society where everything is built according to what people need. Much like the claim he made earlier this poor chap is also freezing to death without his blanket of ecidence.
Just look at the living conditions of the generally free markets in the world, YOu mean the export zones that have no real laws, the places where the worst sweatshops and so on are?
compared to the generally communist markets. Go and live under the Communist-esque Cuba, N. Korea or former Soviet Union for a year. See how you enjoy it, and look at all the rampant homelessness. The homelessness in Cuba is far lower than America, Canada or Britian. North Korea is not communist and the former Soviet Union is run by a bunch of gangster capitalists as one big criminal syndicate rather than a nation.
If you like being told what to do, how to live your life, how much you should give to someone else, that's fine, but you're sick if you think you know what's best for everyone else. That's the true nature of Communism. Prove the claim I so kindly bolded for you.
But if you like the chance to make money, to voluntarily give as much (or little) as you like, or if just want to be treated as a dignified human being and not be enslaved, then stay away from Communism. Very emotional, not very true however. Communism is libertarian (in the true sense of the word rather than the one that Ameri****s use) and grants a fuck load more dignity to workers than capitalism ever will.
I want to live and let live. I will help my fellow man whenever I can, voluntarily. (and I do, whether it is believed or not is irrelevant). I think it's wrong for me to steal from my rich neighbour to give to someone w/ less money. It's violent, and that's exactly the basis of Communism. The ends don't justify the means. However, under Communism you will be forced to give up something, b/c someone else thinks they know better than you. How condescending and tyrranical. Most people who view what we "take" as a big loss deserve it taken from them, the rich are rich because they won at the casino. Their winnings are made off the back off the workers. People like me or (possibly, though I doubt it) you. The ends justify most means, the end is after all a more effeciant system. Capitalism may have granted us more advances, but now it's gone terribly wrong. Take for example advances in useful technology - hydroponics and desalination for two currently relevant examples. They're not 'financially' viable, because all they produce is food and water, not expensive toys with which we can distract ourselves. Under the iron fist of the free market all solutions to our problems come with a huge, arbitary price tag. We do not need it, it's dead weight.
I don't want to live under the slavery of an elite group telling me they think they know what's best for me, Best give up on the capitalism then.
that's why I loathe Communism. (but love debating Commies) ;) Your debate style leaves, how shall I put this so as not to hurt your obviously fragile feelings, a fuck of a lot to be desired. Like an argument.
So, let's continue, but if you're going to come back w/ are ad-hominem name-calling, then save it. So far no one has really made any ad-hominem attacks, although you got close with your decision not to reply to me because I'd insulted you, but that was more style over stubstance.
I'm surprised you feel no shame at having typed both the post before this and this one. I mean one's bad enough but this one is even worse, you spent time writing it, by the look of it you spent quite some time on it. You could really have spent that time better serving humanity by sawing your left leg off and beating yourself to death with it.