Unfair Restrictions?

[Jazzratt]

If you feel you were restricted unfairly, want an unrestriction or don't understand why you were restricted in the first place feel free to post here. If you make posts about your restrictions elsewhere be prepared to have them trashed or merged with this topic.

This is a fresh thread after the old thread grew too large.

[Sky]

There is no serious basis for my account being restricted to the "opposing ideologies" section.

[Jazzratt]

There is no serious basis for my account being restricted to the "opposing ideologies" section.

Could you at least explain this in the specific context of the reasons given for your restriction?

[Dean]

There is no serious basis for my account being restricted to the "opposing ideologies" section.

It may have something to do with your dismissal of the Taliban's womens' rights record, but I am sure that your pro-USSR and pro - DPKR comments have not been helpful.

I think you should re-evaluate your position on the Taliban, or at least clarify it, because that was very offensive to a lot of people.

[Dros]

It may have something to do with your dismissal of the Taliban's womens' rights record, but I am sure that your pro-USSR and pro - DPKR comments have not been helpful.

I think you should re-evaluate your position on the Taliban, or at least clarify it, because that was very offensive to a lot of people.

:lol:

When I said that, you went on a tirade!

[waits for him to go on a tirade]

Yeah, that was a big part of it. The whole argument that the Taliban expresses the interests of the workers was part of it. But generally, I agree. There is no basis for your restriction.

[Dean]

:lol:

When I said that, you went on a tirade!

[waits for him to go on a tirade]

Yeah, that was a big part of it. The whole argument that the Taliban expresses the interests of the workers was part of it. But generally, I agree. There is no basis for your restriction.

I never told him to post a self-criticism or apologize. That was what offended me last time; furthermore, I am not saying that reevaluating his opinion should be done for the sake of unrestriction, but for himself.

While I think Sky has been very tactless in his posts, I also don't agree with the restriction. I think Sky has a lot to learn, and should probably think more before he posts, but I don't think he's been disruptive to the point warranting a restriction.

[Kropotesta]

for what reason have I been restricted?

[RedAnarchist]

The official reason appears to be that you are anti-technology. A thread in the CC is ongoing in regards to your possible unrestriction.

[Kropotesta]

oh. cool thanks. Just to add to that, I ain't anti-tech.

[Black Dagger]

Primitivists are restricted on this board as a matter of course (i don't agree with this, but it's how things are run)

As such, this comment:


I am NOT a full blown anarcho-primivitist

Has been taken by some members to be an admission that you're some kind of primitivist - and thus should be restricted.

Also your comment from feb where you said you were against 'technology in general' has been used to demonstrate that you're 'anti-technology' - how do you respond to these claims?

[Kropotesta]

this is the same post that put in the anarchist group:

It's ridiculous that I can be restricted without people actually directly asking me if I'm anti-tech- then I'd be able to put them straight.
I believe in less tech, which would come from the overthrow of the ruling class as the need for surplus value would be elminated and thus also will competative companies trying to out do eachother.
So if that makes me a primmie then so be it.

[Black Dagger]

What do you mean by 'less technology' - which technology do you think should be done away with and why?

Also, can you please address the questions in my last post.

[Kropotesta]

I am against polluting technologies. I'm against the ruling class being in control of technology/means of production.
less tech would be needed in an anarchist society because of no surplus value and no compettion. Also no competiton would, hopefully, lead to cleaner production so that the earth can recover.
any more you would like me to clear up?

[Black Dagger]

What is your opinion of primitivism - are you any kind of primitivist?

[Kropotesta]

it's a nice idea but i don't like the thought of half the worlds pop dying.
no I ain't a primivitist.

[Xiao Banfa]

This is outrageous!

I am totally bereft of anything that would warrant restriction.

I'm anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, against all forms of discrimination.

I'm an accepted member of the IRL leftist community, what the fuck is wrong with you guys?!

You taken one of my jokes the wrong way, that's it.

Something to do with calling brazillians over-sexual or the jewish jokes.
It's the streotypes I find funny I'm not trying to put down entire nations!

All you need to do is say something about sheep, bad cooking and introvertedness and you've got a decent faux flame war going.

Jesus Motherfucking Christ!!!!

I am probably the least racist person on the face of the fucking earth, it's a fucking pet issue for me.

This is just too much.

Explanation??!!

[BobKKKindle$]

There were actually several issues which prompted your restriction. These included your threats of violence against leftists who defended the cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, your questionable stance on late-term abortions, your belief that two parents of opposite sex are required for a healthy upbringing (i.e. opposition to gay adoption) as well as your crude sexist and chauvinist jokes. When we calculated the votes, restriction received the most votes in favour, and hence you are restricted. One can assume that if you show a change in your position on all of these issues, you may be un-restricted, but this is not certain.

I would suggest that if you want the CC to seriously consider your un-restriction, you adopt a less confrontational tone, accept that you have violated the guidelines of the board, and set about demonstrating that you have a genuine commitment to socialism.

Have fun in OI!

[Dros]

I tend to agree with Xiao.

[RedAnarchist]

Xiao, you tried to make a thread about anti-semitic jokes twice!

I agree with bob that you should be restricted, but if you change in the future, I'll more be more than happy, as will others, to vote for your unrestriction.

[Bud Struggle]

Xiao, you tried to make a thread about anti-semitic jokes twice!


I SAW those. I personally was suprised you gave the guy a second chance.

Welcome Xiao! You are one of US now! :hammersickle: :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

Don't, you'll make him go mad!;)

[Lector Malibu]

Red Anarchist that comment was actually really funny .

Okay , in response to his restriction I stand in agreement that he has displayed behavior that yes is worthy of some type of disciplinary action. The anti semitic threads , the chauvinistic rhetoric I agree where things that I noticed as well. If there is more I do apologize, I just have not stumbled upon it yet.

I will say this though. I do not think that he needs to be restricted to OI. He yes has acted poorly but in all fairness there are others that have made off color remarks as well that I have noticed. I will not say that I stand by his behavior but I think his intent was not exactly to be malicious, rather poor judgment and yes in poor taste.

Though I don't really have any clout on the board I am requesting that the decision to restrict him to OI be modified to a general suspension. Just some time off to think about his actions and the choices he has made.

I like revleft, I have enjoyed my time here. And because of that I will respect whatever decision is made in this matter.

[Lector Malibu]

I propose that we OI's prepare a attack upon the revleft community!


The Revleft community is not to blame for your restriction. That's on you. Instead of figuring out a way to blame and point the finger if you feel you were restricted unfairly then I'm sure there is a way to approach the issue in a civil manner as opposed to hopping on the tired I hate the evil communist band wagon.

just my view , do as you will

[Xiao Banfa]

These included your threats of violence against leftists who defended the cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed

Just welcoming you into the real world, matey. It's not that I have anything against the right to 'blaspheme' per se.

It's just spazzy hippies who think they can shit on muslims in their uncomfortably KKK like manner (burning effigies of Mohammed) who deserve what is known in NZ as the bash.

The bash is something you invite when you act like a disrespectful **** in a completely uncalled for manner.

The communities of repressed muslims in the UK are quite respected by real leftists who actually do things related to class struggle.

Thankfully it's a only a minority who are stupid enough, arrogant enough and insensitive enough to repel potential allies.


your questionable stance on late-term abortions

I have always been passionate about the right to choose, so is my whole family and every single one of my friends.

I have a pro-choice position similar to most pro-choice people.

Bob Kindles and Tragic Clown are insane, I can't help that. Their arguments are shit and invite a backlash against abortion. Maybe we should restric them for sheer carelessness.


your belief that two parents of opposite sex are required for a healthy upbringing (i.e. opposition to gay adoption)

Not necessarily. But generally yes. This has nothing to do with homophobia. A mother has a certain input in her childs upbringing that a father can't replicate and vice versa. Sorry this is common fucking knowledge.


as well as your crude sexist and chauvinist jokes.



When we calculated the votes, restriction received the most votes in favour, and hence you are restricted.

Well, with one sided propanganda, aberrations like that tend to happen.


One can assume that if you show a change in your position on all of these issues, you may be un-restricted, but this is not certain.

You can go fuck yourself.:drool:


set about demonstrating that you have a genuine commitment to socialism.


Don't fucking insult me, you have no right to judge how committed I am to socialism you infuriating wanker. I would give my life for socialism.


in poor taste.

I'm all about poor taste.:lol:

Speaking of which,
the chauvinistic rhetoric

That was designed to rile up TC, and it worked.:D

But I'm not sexist by any stretch of the imagination. I used to be in a party with a woman national secretary, whose authority I respected utterly. If I was a chauvinist there would have been male ego problems.


Xiao, you tried to make a thread about anti-semitic jokes twice!

I have jewish family, I went to a jewish school. I have a more compassionate take on the Israel-Palestine issue than probably anyone on this board who line up alongside everysingle pogromish attack on jewish civillians that is undertaken by terrorist antisemites.

I've told those jokes to jews who know what to laugh at. If your to dense to understand then don't fucking laugh. And if it's not on, then all you do is ask me not to do it again and I wil gladly oblige.

I'm sorry but next.

I think this is just a case of a few manipulative butthurt wankers, who can't take being pwned by the Xiao so they have taken upon selve to launch a personal vendetta by convincing good comrades to vote against me. It's fucking shameless.

All my enemies will regret this, as it is prophesized that I will raise an army of elite trollbott sockpuppets that will exact vengeance just like Babu in Seinfeld, so watch the fuck out!

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't think you should have been restricted either, but meh. Best not to whine about it, just set about proving that you shouldn't have been restricted.

[apathy maybe]

Xiao Banfa: You go on about how you are the most pro-abortion, the most compassionate, whatever, person. Yet, when it comes down to it, simply saying these things doesn't mean shit.


I think this is just a case of a few manipulative butthurt wankers, who can't take being pwned by the Xiao so they have taken upon selve to launch a personal vendetta by convincing good comrades to vote against me. It's fucking shameless.Yeah, whatever.


All my enemies will regret this, as it is prophesized that I will raise an army of elite trollbott sockpuppets that will exact vengeance just like Babu in Seinfeld, so watch the fuck out!Good thing to do if you want to get banned.


Basically, the CC voted to restrict you based on a variety of individual aspects of your posts etc. It wasn't any one thing, but a combination. Lots of people added up your posts and came to the conclusion that your ideas were not compatible enough with the desired thrust of this forum.

You have expressed your opinion that it is bollocks, now I would suggest that you leave it at that. There isn't anything to gain by continuing to post in this thread at this time.

Keep posting in OI (if you want), and if you change your mind, or whatever, then some time in the future someone might start an unrestrict poll for you. But whatever.

[Sentinel]

Thread purged -- could you gentlemen please not spam this thread with non-serious/off-topic stuff? The Reactionary chatter-thread exists for a purpose.

Thanks.

[freakazoid]

Yet, when it comes down to it, simply saying these things doesn't mean shit.

But saying the opposite, or being thought of as saying the opposite does?

[Black Cross]

disrespectful ****

...That's not gonna help your case

[apathy maybe]

But saying the opposite, or being thought of as saying the opposite does?

There is a big difference between saying, "I am the most pro-abortion person ever", and posting an explanation of why that is the case.

If you (for example), wanted to really show that you were pro-abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ever, then you would not simply say "I am pro-abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ever", you would say that plus an explanation of why you think that. E.g. "A women's body is her own, and just like it should not be used by men to please themselves without permission (e.g. rape) it should not be used by a foetus without permission. Where no such permission exists, abortion is self-defence."

That makes it clear that you know why you hold such a position, rather then just parroting it.

(I'm not saying that you are anti-abortion, it was just an example ;).)

[Kropotesta]

can I be unrestricted yet?

[apathy maybe]

No. You have to have a poll in the CC. So yeah, if/when that happens and if you get enough votes, then you can be unrestricted.

[Xiao Banfa]

If you (for example), wanted to really show that you were pro-abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ever, then you would not simply say "I am pro-abortion at any stage of the pregnancy ever", you would say that plus an explanation of why you think that. E.g. "A women's body is her own, and just like it should not be used by men to please themselves without permission (e.g. rape) it should not be used by a foetus without permission. Where no such permission exists, abortion is self-defence."

Most ****s that believe in the right to choose don't reckon you should be able to termininate the pregnancy at every stage of the pregnancy.

Personally I think you should be able to terminate at a late stage if the baby has some kind of defect or something.

But to allow someone, having known for ample time that they are pregnant, to suddenly decide 'Oh I've changed my mind, I think I will have the abortion now' is giving them the right to be callous and sloppy.

I think abortion policy is also about minimizing harm and if you let people have abortions at unnecessarily late stages you are not minimising harm.

Every one of my friends (they are all non-christian, left-wing, anti-discrimination, pro-choice, intelligent and empathetic) that I asked said that these people who were defending abortions at any stage were insane.

Completely divorced from humanistic standards of ethics, reality; completely divorced from public opinion.

If anyone really wants to challenge me on this and slanderously call me anti-choice (which is funny because I defend and agree with abortion-with the limitations just described) why don't you do something like poll secular medical personnel and see what they think of TCist miss-the-point-and-alienate-peopleism.

And don't you dare call me anti-choice.

[Joby]

Well, Xiao, if they keep to precedent you've just guaranteed OI will be your home for some time.


Welcome, and I agree with you.


The best move for the Lest would be best a position that, while pro-choice, they are anti-abortion and consider it a tragedy. Both in the moral and ethical sense, but also in the sense that the woman wasn't truly given a choice because of the economic, social, and lack of education situations this woman might be suffering from.

[hajduk]

so is there some chances for my unrestriction or still some comraders hate me and dont give a fuck about me becouse they think that i am nationalist,reactionarist,spammer,troller,sexist,r eligion fanatic,trockyst,marxist,stalinist...put if i miss something

[RedAnarchist]

I think the last discussion was only a few months ago, and they don't really like to have them less than three months apart, so maybe ask in a month or two?

[Bud Struggle]

i am nationalist,reactionarist,spammer,troller,sexist,r eligion fanatic,

Welcome! :)

[Wanted Man]

All my enemies will regret this, as it is prophesized that I will raise an army of elite trollbott sockpuppets that will exact vengeance just like Babu in Seinfeld, so watch the fuck out!
Play this game: www.forumwarz.com It will put your mind at ease.

[Xiao Banfa]

Play this game: www.forumwarz.com (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.forumwarz.com) It will put your mind at ease.

Yes, I know. I invented that game and used to play it everyday until I discovered revleft.

But seriously. This is ridiculous. This is just a campaign against a really authentic comrade for fuck all.

OK if you want your really late abortions, go and have a baby and I'll rip it out for you. I'll even conceive the baby for you to show that there's no hard feelings. Well not bad hard feelings...

[Xiao Banfa]

Play this game: www.forumwarz.com (http://www.forumwarz.com/) It will put your mind at ease.


I know. I invented that game. I used to play it everyday untill I discovered revleft.

But seriously this is ridiculous. Restricting an authentic comrade for fuck all.

I'm all about late term abortions, allright? Have a baby wait 9 months and I'll rip it out for you. I'll even help with conception just to show there's no hard feelings. No bad hard feelings, that is.

[Bud Struggle]

Have a baby wait 9 months and I'll rip it out for you. I'll even help with conception just to show there's no hard feelings.

I just LOVE the logic of Communism. :lol:

[RedAnarchist]

I just LOVE the logic of Communism. :lol:


He's no Communist, thats for sure.

[Xiao Banfa]

He's no Communist, thats for sure.

Easy to say; backing it up is something else altogether.

[hajduk]

I think the last discussion was only a few months ago, and they don't really like to have them less than three months apart, so maybe ask in a month or two?or in a year or two;)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

XB, do you oppose same-sex adoption?

[Xiao Banfa]

XB, do you oppose same-sex adoption?


In most cases.

[Bud Struggle]

In most cases.

Another OI Convert!!!

Embrace the Darkness, Brother!

Read and learn!

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

:)

[Xiao Banfa]

TomK! I'm not going to convert to Catholicism. :mellow:

And I do accept some adoption by same sex couples. Also I support LGBT rights including civil unions.

I just think most kids would want the advantages of having a mother and a father. Not that you'll necessarily get that in a heterosexual relationship, but you'll increase the amount of kids without a mother and a father if you allow unqualified same sex adoption. That's for sure.

This has nothing to do with homophobia or value judgements on the nature of homosexual relationships, however.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

In most cases.
Then I've changed my mind, you should be restricted. You might not think it's homophobic to say that children wouldn't want gay parents or that gays are inherently worse at raising children, but it is.

[Xiao Banfa]

I never said gays were inherently worse at raising children at all.

Where did you get that from?

[RedAnarchist]

Why do they need a "mother" adn "father"? Why does having one male parent and one female parent give a child any advantage?

[Xiao Banfa]

Why do they need a "mother" adn "father"? Why does having one male parent and one female parent give a child any advantage?


I would have thought this would be obvious. A mother and father have different but complimentary specialties.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I would have thought this would be obvious. A mother and father have different but complimentary specialties.
Maybe a hundred years ago when family roles were strictly defined (at the expense of everyone except white heterosexual males), but not today. Fathers can be just as nurturing as mothers, mothers can be "breadwinners" as much as fathers etc.

[RHIZOMES]

Xiao Banfa - First the Alliance Party, now THIS?
:(

[Xiao Banfa]

Maybe a hundred years ago when family roles were strictly defined (at the expense of everyone except white heterosexual males), but not today. Fathers can be just as nurturing as mothers, mothers can be "breadwinners" as much as fathers etc.

It's got nothing to do with conditioned defined roles that we had in th 19th century. Men and women are different. It's scientifically proven.

Children are more attached to their mothers in their early years for example. I'm sorry but on this one you are wrong.

I'm not saying women can't be breadwinners etc. I'm saying men and women are different- anyone who has lived in society knows that.

And these days it has very little to do with social conditioning.
Especially where I live- New Zealand is probably the least sexist country in the world. I'm used to seeing women doing everything,which doesn't bother me.

But everyone I know. These are leftists BTW, will agree that men and women are different and have different skills to bring to society.

Shit, I wish the left were allowed to have these discussions without calling each other reactionaries (and without restricting each other from our sites).

[Joby]

Shit, I wish the left were allowed to have these discussions without calling each other reactionaries (and without restricting each other from our sites).


Yeah, I often wonder how they don't run out of things to debate up top.

[Ahazmaksya]

Want to know why I was restricted for discussing the concept of race.

[Sentinel]

Want to know why I was restricted for discussing the concept of race.
From the Admin Actions thread:

Restricted Ahazmaksya - 'i am far from a leftist'

[freakazoid]

Easy to say; backing it up is something else altogether.

It really is isn't it... ass. :glare:



Shit, I wish the left were allowed to have these discussions without calling each other reactionaries (and without restricting each other from our sites).

It would be nice but I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon.

[Sky]

The assertion that I am an Islamist apologist is slanderous. I have consistently demonstrated opposition to Islamist movements, as shown in this thread.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamic-terrorists-killed-t71729/index.html?p=1085579

[Demogorgon]

The assertion that I am an Islamist apologist is slanderous. I have consistently demonstrated opposition to Islamist movements, as shown in this thread.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/islamic-terrorists-killed-t71729/index.html?p=1085579

You are restricted for being a general lunatic. our comments on homosexuality and abortion being a case in point. Your slavish support for anything the capitalist Government in China does is another.

[Sky]

You are restricted for being a general lunatic.

Says a self-identified Trot...



comments on homosexuality and abortion being a case in point.

Concerning abortion, I never identified myself to be pro-life. I only expressed a position espoused by many communists advocating certain restrictions on abortion in order to preserve a healthy rate of population growth. My arguments were directed against neo-Malthusian propagandists advocating population control. The precedent of socialist construction creates incentives for families to have a large number of children.

Concerning homosexuality, I have reiterated that I support drawing proletarian homosexuals into the struggle for social and national liberation.



Your slavish support for anything the capitalist Government in China does is another.

I don't support anything the Chinese Government does. China tolerates the existence of a rogue regime in Taiwan province, whereas I do not.

[Lector Malibu]

Sky I read your post on homosexuals and let's just say I did not get the best vibes from your intent. And to counter the argument you produced about homosexuality not being linked to genetics, I knew at a young age even before puberty that I was attracted to the same sex.

[Demogorgon]

Says a self-identified Trot...
Yes well this self certifying Trot has a vote on whether you remain restricted or not, and that attitude isn't going to help, is it?


Concerning abortion, I never identified myself to be pro-life. I only expressed a position espoused by many communists advocating certain restrictions on abortion in order to preserve a healthy rate of population growth. My arguments were directed against neo-Malthusian propagandists advocating population control. The precedent of socialist construction creates incentives for families to have a large number of children. I know perfectly well you are not pro-life. It is the fact that you are anti-choice that bothers me. Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference.


Concerning homosexuality, I have reiterated that I support drawing proletarian homosexuals into the struggle for social and national liberation.
In much the same way that Mike Huckabee said he wanted gay people to vote for him. Didn't stop him being a homophobe


I don't support anything the Chinese Government does. China tolerates the existence of a rogue regime in Taiwan province, whereas I do not.
Another case in point of lunacy. Don't expect to be unrestricted.

[Xiao Banfa]

What happened to all those awesome posts we did? I can't remember what the fuck they were about, but that's alcohol for you.

I'll go look in the trashcan, when I have finished let them be restored.

Oh woops, sorry bit drunk.

[Anashtih]

I know perfectly well you are not pro-life. It is the fact that you are anti-choice that bothers me. Contrary to popular belief, there is a difference.

That's precisely it, for me. Sorry to address this in this forum, but for a while now, I've been trying to explain to people that I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion! Whatever I believe, I'm never going to bear a child, being a male, and I don't think that I should have the right to decide what a woman can and can't do. If that makes any sense.

[Killfacer]

This i ridiculous. All i did was, on my first post, discuss and compare capitalism with anarchism and communism and i was immediatly restricted. What the hell! This is bizzare, nothing i said was even vaguely offensive and if i called myself anything it would be an Anarchist. I was attempting to encourage a free and fair debate about capitalism. What next, gonna come round my house and throw me in a gulag. I want an apology from whoever restricted me. I want to be un restricted and i want to be able to freely discuss, without fear of punishment, the complexities of politics.

Ridiculous

Killfacer

[RedAnarchist]

This i ridiculous. All i did was, on my first post, discuss and compare capitalism with anarchism and communism and i was immediatly restricted. What the hell! This is bizzare, nothing i said was even vaguely offensive and if i called myself anything it would be an Anarchist. I was attempting to encourage a free and fair debate about capitalism. What next, gonna come round my house and throw me in a gulag. I want an apology from whoever restricted me. I want to be un restricted and i want to be able to freely discuss, without fear of punishment, the complexities of politics.

Ridiculous

Killfacer

In your profile -


Political Statement:i hate commies.

That doesn't really help does it?

[Lector Malibu]

This i ridiculous. All i did was, on my first post, discuss and compare capitalism with anarchism and communism and i was immediatly restricted. What the hell! This is bizzare, nothing i said was even vaguely offensive and if i called myself anything it would be an Anarchist. I was attempting to encourage a free and fair debate about capitalism. What next, gonna come round my house and throw me in a gulag. I want an apology from whoever restricted me. I want to be un restricted and i want to be able to freely discuss, without fear of punishment, the complexities of politics.

Ridiculous

Killfacer


Age:17

Biography:I have always been the coolest person i know

Location:Brizzle

Interests:Staying up really late on my own so i can see the really fit bird who sometimes presents the news

Occupation:Student

Political Statement:i hate commies.

Gender:Male


Do you think the highlighted reference has anything to do with your restriction?

[Killfacer]

I do not beleive my dislike of communism is grounds for my restriction. I personally feel that what the communists did at Kronstadt was a disgrace. I also beleive what they did to Nestor Makhno was a disgrace. Thirdly i beleive that their intervention within the spanish civil war was unhelpful at best.

I'm, if anything, an anarchist. I beleive my dislike of communism does not reflect on my having right wing veiws, rather that i am a stoic anarchist. One who dislikes communism. Yes i may have been foolish writing it in my bio. But i dont think that it is good enough grounds for restricting me. Sticking me with a bunch of racists and homophobes.

I would like to get rid of the "i hate commies" bit as it does seems to be offensive to you. I didnt realise people were so sensitive. I apologise for hurting your feelings. Now can somebody

A. Unrestrict me
B. Tell me how i change my bio so it does not say i hate commies

[Marsella]

Well we ban racists or homophobes.

What are your economic views?

[Xiao Banfa]

I do not beleive my dislike of communism is grounds for my restriction. I personally feel that what the communists did at Kronstadt was a disgrace. I also beleive what they did to Nestor Makhno was a disgrace. Thirdly i beleive that their intervention within the spanish civil war was unhelpful at best.

I'm, if anything, an anarchist. I beleive my dislike of communism does not reflect on my having right wing veiws, rather that i am a stoic anarchist. One who dislikes communism. Yes i may have been foolish writing it in my bio. But i dont think that it is good enough grounds for restricting me. Sticking me with a bunch of racists and homophobes.

I would like to get rid of the "i hate commies" bit as it does seems to be offensive to you. I didnt realise people were so sensitive. I apologise for hurting your feelings. Now can somebody

A. Unrestrict me
B. Tell me how i change my bio so it does not say i hate commies


Now from this post we can ascertain you're a total fool who has never read a centrist, unbiased article in your distasteful life.

You are obviously reactionary to the core, so don't whinge like a complete pussy because revleft won't tolerate your uninformed whining.

[RedAnarchist]

Interests:Staying up really late on my own so i can see the really fit bird who sometimes presents the news

Is she a chicken? Maybe a duck, or a swan?:rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

My veiws on economy are pretty fluid (or confused, take your pick). Ideally i would like an anarchist state in which money was abolished and everybody was equal. But more realistically i beleive that the best it is possible to hope for is a liberal capitalist democracy. I beleive that huge companies and corperations do damage to third world countries.

I was simply trying to encourage debate. I do not see why this in anyway should of got my restricted. It seems people have dismissed me as a vicious neo-con without understanding my beleifs. Do restrict someone after 1 post i think is not only ridiculous but massively unfair.

I do not beleive that because of academic debate, one should be labeled "counter revolutionary". I hope on revleft to find like minded people, willing to discuss politics and economics and even philosophy. It seems however i was wrong and after my first post i have been labeled and binned.

[Killfacer]

And as for you Xaio banfa, you are an idiot. A snobbish idiot. Dont dismiss people because they have not read the same bloody books as you. Shouldnt poltics be encouraged. Its pathetic. You should be encouraging young people to get into politics. Not dissmissing them when they say something. You are a snob. An elitist snob. Instead of gettin on your high horse you should be advising what centerist books i SHOULD be reading. You should help, not offend. Yes, the amount of books i have read is limited. But at seventeen this is hardly suprising is it. Tell me some books and i will go out of my way to read them. I think you need to be more helpful in your criticism and less offensive.

[Xiao Banfa]

But more realistically i beleive that the best it is possible to hope for is a liberal capitalist democracy.


Hence the restriction. Leftist forum. Talking about...leftism.



I hope on revleft to find like minded people, willing to discuss politics and economics and even philosophy. It seems however i was wrong and after my first post i have been labeled and binned.


This is not a Fabian cigar bar. Why don't you try a forum with a mandate to talk liberalism. Liberalism is largely seen as a bourgeois version of anaesthetic. To administer to the proletariat, so they continue to participate in the parliamentary circus.

[Killfacer]

that didnt really answer what i said did it. You think your clever dont you. But you just regurgitate bullshit. What you on about. WHats this site for? poltical discussion. What was i doing? political discussion. Just because you think your a fucking young genius doesnt meen you are mate. In reality your an idiot. An idiot who beleives because they use words like Fabian they are cool. Were i come from you would be laughed at. I bet your bullied so you sit closeted in your room all day being offensive. Ever heard of constructive criticism? obviously not. Other people on this forum have been nice, they have disagreed with what i said and left it at that. I have answered their criticism and not been offensive in anyway. You on the other hand. You are dismissive, idiotic, fuckwitt who beleives he is a genius but in reality just rubbishes other peoples ideas without good reason. Why dont you reply on my other thread? if you disagree so strongly i would like to discuss it. And as for this statement

"Why don't you try a forum with a mandate to talk liberalism. Liberalism is largely seen as a bourgeois version of anaesthetic. To administer to the proletariat, so they continue to participate in the parliamentary circus.".

thats laughable. What are you? Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

[Lector Malibu]

Is she a chicken? Maybe a duck, or a swan?:rolleyes:

Come on, Swans are hot!!

:lol::lol:

[Killfacer]

yes she is a swan.

Now about being un restricted!

[Xiao Banfa]

words like Fabian they are cool.


It's obviously just a word, right? And you call yourself an englishman! What a tosser.

Don't you even know your own country's history?

Nah man, you fail.



"Why don't you try a forum with a mandate to talk liberalism. Liberalism is largely seen as a bourgeois version of anaesthetic. To administer to the proletariat, so they continue to participate in the parliamentary circus.".

thats laughable. What are you? Do you know how ridiculous you sound?


Now this is what I want to hear. A reactionary floundering in the fact that he doesn't know why he's been chucked out of the members area.:o

I'm embarassed for speaking english to you. Crazy people speak english.
:sleep:

[Killfacer]

actually i DO know what a fabian is but i do not drop it into conversations in attempt to be cool. I DO know why i was chucked out. Because i was dicussing liberalism and i think capitalism is not ALL bad. Personally i dont see this as a viable reason for being thrown out.

And now why i found your statement laughable. You used the term "largely" as though everybody agrees with you. They dont. Most of the world would disagree with you. Most of the general population of the UK, Australia and America would probably disagree with you. Yet you use it as though you have the backing of millions. Something i doubt when one considers the detestable and agressive nature that you obviously possess.

But this is not the point. I still dont think i should have been restricted. It was my first thread for god sake. Before i got bogged down in this stupid war of words with Xiao Banfa. No doubt he will come back with a cunning repost to make a fool of me with his cunning word smithery and is sharp wit. But can someone genuinly discuss my restriction without referign A. To any kind of bird and B. Saying im a reactionary.


And Xaio Banfa, can you explain what centerist books i should read and why. I am, despite you blatent rudeness, still interested in readin them.

i am not a reactionary. I just enjoy discussion.

p.s just to prove i know what the fabian society was:

Set up just before world war one (i think) it was a left wing group which were i guess "socialist". They wanted liberal change without revolution.

[Xiao Banfa]

cunning word smithery and is sharp wit.


You just annihilated me you fucking pommy bastard. Can you be nice?

I've been nice to you.

[Killfacer]

i cant tell if your seriously saying that or its part of a cunning aussie ploy to steal my dignity as well as the ashes. But if you are being serious then ok ill be nice now. And can you tell me about these books i have asked several times.

Back to the whole point of this. I want to be unrestricted. It was my first post after all. And no one has given that good a reason for my restriction. A slap on the wrist will be fine.

[RedAnarchist]

Do New Zealanders use the word pommy?

[Jazzratt]

Now about being un restricted!

Not going to happen. At least not on my watch. You've expressed de-facto support for capitalism, dressed it up in pragamtist rhetoric and then laid into the communists on this board in a really stupid way.

Buck your ideas up or get off this board.

[Xiao Banfa]

aussie ploy to steal my dignity as well as the ashes.

Yeah exactly, don't blame me.



I want to be unrestricted.



Yes you do. You are dreaming however.


Do New Zealanders use the word pommy?


Yeah, but some prefer 'Brit' or 'Pom'.

Or else we just take off whatever roysterish region you come from. Like Stubbington for example.

BTW, we don't give a shit about soccer (we use the US word). Soccer is boringer that Rugby (which is the best game in the world).

[spartan]

BTW, we don't give a shit about soccer (we use the US word). Soccer is boringer that Rugby (which is the best game in the world).

Haha i agree that Rugby is better than Football but i still like Football.

I like both codes of Rugby but i guess with you being a Kiwi you only like Union?

[Killfacer]

ok then. If thats the case then it doesnt look like im gonna get de-restricted. If people are that sensitive then i apologise.

I do not apologise for what i beleive though. I dislike communism. Call me stupid and bias but i just do. I have not dressed up my support for capitalism in pragmatist rhetoric. I was simply debating. If this is enough to get me restricted then maybe its a good thing i have been restricted.

As for bucking my ideas up, does this ever work? I am willing to change my beleifs if i see a good explanation why i should do so. Without input from intelligent anarchists or communist it is unlikely i will ever change my opinions. So it is actually people like you who stop youngsters such as myself from expanding their poltical and ideological beleifs. I dont beleive that one thread is enough to say that i have a de-facto support from capitalism. I do not, i am an anarchist. I just beleive discussion is neccessary to strengthen my beleifs. Capitalism and its strengths was a doubt in my mind that i had about Anarchism. I wanted to iron this doubt out.But it seems i will be unable to do so. I will make my introduction on the inamtes into boards.

GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!

[apathy maybe]

Heh, you want a classless society that doesn't use money. I believe that's communism ;).

Stick around though dude, you are welcome to discuss capitalism et al. in this forum, and maybe we can convince you that capitalism isn't so good ;).

[Killfacer]

ok cheers mate. Bout time someone didnt verbally assault me. Can some one tell me to change my bio aswell please.

[Colonello Buendia]

you're fairly new to Anarchism right? well I am aswell though I used to be marxist. I used to have doubts about capitalism but I unlike you didn't say it out loud. instead I just read more experienced members posts and have become certain that Anarcho Syndicalism is the the way forward. good luck comrade oon your quest

[Killfacer]

Im pretty sure you were talking me.

Im new to anachism, well fairly, i know alot about its history. I know alot about political history (particuarly the russian revolution and the ensuing civil war). I am young and interested in politics, obviously i was wrong in thinking that having an interest in politics and a willing mind was enough that i would be able to ask probing questions. But it would seem people are unwilling to listen and too willing to dismiss.

Im gonna stop posting on this part of the forum now because its being over run with the same people.

[careyprice31]

ok then. If thats the case then it doesnt look like im gonna get de-restricted. If people are that sensitive then i apologise.

I do not apologise for what i beleive though. I dislike communism. Call me stupid and bias but i just do. I have not dressed up my support for capitalism in pragmatist rhetoric. I was simply debating. If this is enough to get me restricted then maybe its a good thing i have been restricted.

As for bucking my ideas up, does this ever work? I am willing to change my beleifs if i see a good explanation why i should do so. Without input from intelligent anarchists or communist it is unlikely i will ever change my opinions. So it is actually people like you who stop youngsters such as myself from expanding their poltical and ideological beleifs. I dont beleive that one thread is enough to say that i have a de-facto support from capitalism. I do not, i am an anarchist. I just beleive discussion is neccessary to strengthen my beleifs. Capitalism and its strengths was a doubt in my mind that i had about Anarchism. I wanted to iron this doubt out.But it seems i will be unable to do so. I will make my introduction on the inamtes into boards.

GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!

This young fellow does have a point though when he says this:

"Without input from intelligent anarchists or communist it is unlikely i will ever change my opinions. So it is actually people like you who stop youngsters such as myself from expanding their poltical and ideological beleifs"

sometimes, i think we all know, some leftists can be leftism's own worst enemy.

and also when he said he hated communism, i think he was reffering to the USSR , he did mention Kronstadt, and it seems to be that he is a rookie and young also, when most people say they hate communism they are usually referring to Lenin, Stalin, and the USSR, not Marx and the original ideas and founders of it.

Is he a reactionary? probably not, he sees himself as anarchist than anything. I think it seems to me like he hardly knows what it means to be a revolutionary and support real change , rather than reform.

It seems to me the little fellow is right, like your attacking him and driving him away, rather than taking him under your wings and educating him.

Give a little young noob a break, eh?

[Dros]

This young fellow does have a point though when he says this:

"Without input from intelligent anarchists or communist it is unlikely i will ever change my opinions. So it is actually people like you who stop youngsters such as myself from expanding their poltical and ideological beleifs"

sometimes, i think we all know, some leftists can be leftism's own worst enemy.

and also when he said he hated communism, i think he was reffering to the USSR , he did mention Kronstadt, and it seems to be that he is a rookie and young also, when most people say they hate communism they are usually referring to Lenin, Stalin, and the USSR, not Marx and the original ideas and founders of it.

Is he a reactionary? probably not, he sees himself as anarchist than anything. I think it seems to me like he hardly knows what it means to be a revolutionary and support real change , rather than reform.

It seems to me the little fellow is right, like your attacking him and driving him away, rather than taking him under your wings and educating him.

Give a little young noob a break, eh?

no.

If he wants to learn, then he will read the boards and read literature. However, we are not going to let him troll here an skrew around with our actual conversation.

[apathy maybe]

Im pretty sure you were talking me.

Im new to anachism, well fairly, i know alot about its history. I know alot about political history (particuarly the russian revolution and the ensuing civil war). I am young and interested in politics, obviously i was wrong in thinking that having an interest in politics and a willing mind was enough that i would be able to ask probing questions. But it would seem people are unwilling to listen and too willing to dismiss.

Im gonna stop posting on this part of the forum now because its being over run with the same people.

Heh, look you don't need to just stop posting. Just ignore the folk who insult you, and learn.

There is a lot of good information on this site, even if there are a lot of narrow minded folk as well.

Read, read and read (esp. in Learning), and if you have a question, post it. It doesn't hurt to learn.

[Black Cross]

When/how did Banfa get unrestricted? I didn't think it would ever happen.

[Lector Malibu]

When/how did Banfa get unrestricted? I didn't think it would ever happen.

He did not. he took it to the next level and got himself banned.

[RedFlagComrade]

Yay!Eh why was i restricted??

[Jazzratt]

Yay!Eh why was i restricted??

Reactionary stance on abortion.

[Dros]

Yay!Eh why was i restricted??

Because of your chauvinistic and sexist position on abortion.

[RedFlagComrade]

Reactionary stance on abortion.

Reactionary? Thats a word thats bandied about a lot as an insult on this forum. What the fuck does it mean? Somebody who "reacts negatively to a class revolution"?? How does airing an opinion (that violated a fascist rule I was unaware of) constitute a stance detrimental to the revolution?? Im entitled to my opinion and I think this policy of restrictions for personal viewpoints (that certainly arent anti-communist since Im a loyal Marxist-Leninist who just happens to be pro-life) to be worthy of Hitler!Ive researched and read about communism, even practised on a small scale yet I've been restricted before I got to my 50th post.I believe that killing a child, unborn (the most vulnerable type of person in the world) or not, is murder yet on possibly every other major issue I agree with the radical anti-capitalist left.

Good luck, people!When I lead the first truly successful communist revolution and usher in the beginning of an age of global social justice you'll all be sorry:lol::D:lol:

[RedAnarchist]

Reactionary? Thats a word thats bandied about a lot as an insult on this forum. What the fuck does it mean? Somebody who "reacts negatively to a class revolution"?? How does airing an opinion (that violated a fascist rule I was unaware of) constitute a stance detrimental to the revolution?? Im entitled to my opinion and I think this policy of restrictions for personal viewpoints (that certainly arent anti-communist since Im a loyal Marxist-Leninist who just happens to be pro-life) to be worthy of Hitler!Ive researched and read about communism, even practised on a small scale yet I've been restricted before I got to my 50th post.I believe that killing a child, unborn (the most vulnerable type of person in the world) or not, is murder yet on possibly every other major issue I agree with the radical anti-capitalist left.

Good luck, people!When I lead the first truly successful communist revolution and usher in the beginning of an age of global social justice you'll all be sorry!!!

A foetus is not a child. Abortion is often one of the very few, if not the only, issue that all leftists tend to agree on.

And the last bit is just hilarious:lol:

[RedFlagComrade]

A foetus is not a child. Abortion is often one of the very few, if not the only, issue that all leftists tend to agree on.

I dont really want to argue about here (the thread that got me restricted is still about), I just want to now how it was deemed a valid reason to remove me from the board?

[apathy maybe]

You obviously aren't removed from the board. You're still posting.

But anyway, it works like this, even if an unborn child is a child, the child's right to life is out weighed by the mother's right to self-defence.

If someone starts to attack you, you defend yourself yes? Well, in this case, a person starts to "attack", another, the person being attacked defends them self by getting an abortion.

Simply really. But anyway, if that doesn't convince you, what about weighing up the pain and suffering of the two beings involved? One doesn't have a fully formed nervous system and can't feel pain, the other, a fully formed nervous system and can feel pain. Why should the one who can't feel pain be given higher priority then the one who can?

Anyway, I don't believe in restricting people who oppose abortion, mainly because I used to oppose them too. If I had have been restricted when I first got here, I doubt I would have hung around. But, I had my mind changed, I was convinced that I was wrong, and here I am today.

[RedFlagComrade]

You obviously aren't removed from the board. You're still posting.


restricted, whatever, you know what I mean.

[RedFlagComrade]

But anyway, it works like this, even if an unborn child is a child, the child's right to life is out weighed by the mother's right to self-defence.

If someone starts to attack you, you defend yourself yes? Well, in this case, a person starts to "attack", another, the person being attacked defends them self by getting an abortion.

Simply really. But anyway, if that doesn't convince you, what about weighing up the pain and suffering of the two beings involved? One doesn't have a fully formed nervous system and can't feel pain, the other, a fully formed nervous system and can feel pain. Why should the one who can't feel pain be given higher priority then the one who can?

Anyway, I don't believe in restricting people who oppose abortion, mainly because I used to oppose them too. If I had have been restricted when I first got here, I doubt I would have hung around. But, I had my mind changed, I was convinced that I was wrong, and here I am today.

Actually, as I said in the original post that got me restricted-Im in favor of abortion in cases of rape pregnancies or threats to the health of the mother-Im only opposed to abortion if the parents simply want to kill the baby because they dont want the bother of looking after it.

[Lord Testicles]

What if they can't afford to look after it, or don't want it? Whats worse, killing a half formed bag of cells or bringing a child into this world who can't be looked after or isn't wanted?

[RedFlagComrade]

Killing a child is worse! What if you "didn't want" your wife or sth. Does that give you a right to kill her? Do you think if you were an abandoned child whose parents didnt want you when you were in the womb that you'd prefer to have been aborted-No! People want to be alive. There should be government-funded holistic institutions to care for unwanted children. The aborted child might have grown up to lead a communist revolution etc.

N e way Ive had this debate already and I dont really feel that strongly on the subject either way. But I still dont think it was fair to restrict me!Its just an opinion-restricing me for it is a bit totalitarian fascist, dont you think?.Im a fully developed communist who wants social equality as much as the rest of you (well I was Im a bit dissillusioned now thanks to revleft!)

[Lord Testicles]

Killing a child is worse

It's not a child, it's a foetus


What if you "didn't want" your wife or sth. Does that give you a right to kill her?

No, you get a divorce.


Do you think if you were an abandoned child whose parents didnt want you when you were in the womb that you'd prefer to have been aborted-No!

Well if I was an abondoned child, I would probably die through neglect, which I imagine hurts alot. If I had been aborted, I wouldn't have been aware of it, let alone felt any pain.


People want to be alive.

Of course they do, but a foetus is not a person.


There should be government-funded holistic institutions to care for unwanted children.

What about the women who had to give birth to these children? Are you willing to let them go through all that pain, when it could have been resolved months ago without causing pain to anyone?



But I still dont think it was fair to restrict me!Its just an opinion-restricing me for it is a bit totalitarian fascist, dont you think?

No, I don't think so, people are restricted for holding reactionary ideas which would interrupt progressive discussions.


Im a fully developed communist who wants social equality as much as the rest of you

You evidently don't want social equality since you wouldn't grant a woman rights over her own body!

[Killfacer]

this doesnt seem like fair grounds for restrictions. At least to get restricted i said derogatory comments about communism. All he said was some minor thing about abortion. Reactionary? as if, all it was was him disagreing with a moderator on 1 issue.

[Lord Testicles]

this doesnt seem like fair grounds for restrictions. At least to get restricted i said derogatory comments about communism. All he said was some minor thing about abortion. Reactionary? as if, all it was was him disagreing with a moderator on 1 issue.

If you deny someone the right to have an abortion you deny them the right to control their own body, that's probably worse than making derogatory comments about communism.

[RedFlagComrade]

If you deny someone the right to have an abortion you deny them the right to control their own body, that's probably worse than making derogatory comments about communism.

I am of the sincere opinion that being pro-life is more leftist than being pro-choice in terms of being socially just.

I'd be in favour of abortian only in rape cases or if the womans health was threatened.

Why?-If the woman didnt want the child-well she is basically being selfish-chosing to terminate the possible life within her for the sake of some small comfort-and contraceptian is freely available so the issue shouldn't arise.The foetus may be only a bundle of cells but it could become a conscious human and its not fair to kill that possibility

-And if the family is unable to care for the child-well thats the point of communism-if everybody has equal wealth that excuse is meaningless.I say that every foetus should have an equal chance at life regardless of the economic circumstances of its family-a leftist sentiment surely?Government welfare would be available for those who couldnt provide for their children.

[RedFlagComrade]

What about the women who had to give birth to these children? Are you willing to let them go through all that pain, when it could have been resolved months ago without causing pain to anyone?




No, I don't think so, people are restricted for holding reactionary ideas which would interrupt progressive discussions.


First point-there are drugs-no more labour pains

Reactionary-that word again!What the fuck does it mean.Whenever some of you come accross an argument you dont agree with but aren't intelligent enough to refute it you just say that what I said was "reactionary".You never actually properly read opposition arguments,you never listen to what others have to say-instead you just start insulting.At least I can recognise valid political points from political opponents even if I dont agree with everything they say.Im sort of glad to be rid of this forum-its full of fucking ignorant arrogant neo-nazi fuckheads with tightly closed minds.

And I started the thread on abortion so I wasnt interrupting anyone.

So..
Unrestrict me!
Thanks

[RedFlagComrade]

Because of your chauvinistic and sexist position on abortion.

Well you're an arrogant, smug despot, so fuck off!!

[RedFlagComrade]

Also I was given a warning and told I wasnt to be restricted and since then i havent aid anything pro-life on this forum yet I still got restricted...

A certain 'Coggy' sent me this PM...

"Hello , i wanted to talk to you about your views on abortion i see your new here , their are some rules saying anyone who is pro life has to be restricted but i see your an open minded leftist . Abortion is a very deep topic that needs alot of thought , it is not something you can support suddenly of course but the left does support a womens right to choose for alot of reasons and if you have any questions you can ask me or talk to a mod about it .

Solidarity ."

[Lord Testicles]

I am of the sincere opinion that being pro-life is more leftist than being pro-choice in terms of being socially just.


How come? Were are you being socially just to the woman?


contraceptian is freely available so the issue shouldn't arise


But the issue does arise and you have to recognise that.



The foetus may be only a bundle of cells but it could become a conscious human and its not fair to kill that possibility

I take it you don't masterbate then.


-And if the family is unable to care for the child-well thats the point of communism-if everybody has equal wealth that excuse is meaningless.

But we don't live in communism at the moment.


I say that every foetus should have an equal chance at life

Should every sperm also have an equal chance at life? If not, then why not?


Reactionary-that word again!What the fuck does it mean.Whenever some of you come accross an argument you dont agree with but aren't intelligent enough to refute it you just say that what I said was "reactionary".You never actually properly read opposition arguments,you never listen to what others have to say-instead you just start insulting.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reactionary


Im sort of glad to be rid of this forum-its full of fucking neo-nazi fuckheads with tightly closed minds.

Fuck off then, and stop throwing about empty political slurs.


Well you're an arrogant, smug despot, so fuck off!!

wow, drosera99 runs a country?

[Sam_b]

If the woman didnt want the child-well she is basically being selfish-chosing to terminate the possible life within her for the sake of some small comfort-and contraceptian is freely available so the issue shouldn't arise.

So you don't think its selfish or out of order at all to dictate to women what they should do with their own bodies?


First point-there are drugs-no more labour pains

And that is utter bollocks. I was on drugs when i dislocated my kneecap - didn't stop it hurting like nothing else.

[Kami]

terminate the possible life
Y'see, here's the thing. Every moment a man spends impregnating a woman, he's denying the sperm, or possible life, the chance to become it's full-fledged big brother, life. To logically, consistently hold the possible life stance, you must also be in favour of constant impregnation. I hope you aren't?

[freakazoid]

I was on drugs when i dislocated my kneecap - didn't stop it hurting like nothing else.

Drugs helped the pain after my hernia surgery.


What about the women who had to give birth to these children? Are you willing to let them go through all that pain, when it could have been resolved months ago without causing pain to anyone?

I always found this as a really week argument for it. It is often said that "pro-lifers" are just using emotion when they bring up things like how it is gotten rid of. But then "pro-choicers" bring in this argument, which is also just using emotion.

I find it stupid, and reactionary, to restrict someone who believes in "pro-life" when in every other way they are some type of leftist, it is not like they believe that is is oppressive to women and therefore wish to subjugate them. They believe what they believe on abortion because they view the fetus as as a human being with rights. And those who do believe that shouldn't be afraid of being restricted because of it. It should be allowed to be openly debated, all the while they can post in threads in other sections of this board. Abortion has nothing to do with the workers movement.

[Sam_b]

Drugs helped the pain after my hernia surgery.

Yes, helped the pain - didn't eradicate it though, did it?

[freakazoid]

It did while I was taking it. Two pills of Oxycodone every, 4 hours I think.


He did not. he took it to the next level and got himself banned.

Why was he banned?

[RedFlagComrade]

And that is utter bollocks. I was on drugs when i dislocated my kneecap - didn't stop it hurting like nothing else.

For some reason I thought it would be fairly obvious that the drugs I was refering to are birthing drugs-which are effective!

ANYWAY-AS I SAID MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE I DONT HAVE VERY STRONG VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF ABORTION, I SIMPLY HAVE A MILD BARELY-FORMED OPINION THAT IT IS WRONG!:rolleyes:Not enough to get me banned surely?

[RedFlagComrade]

Y'see, here's the thing. Every moment a man spends impregnating a woman, he's denying the sperm, or possible life, the chance to become it's full-fledged big brother, life. To logically, consistently hold the possible life stance, you must also be in favour of constant impregnation. I hope you aren't?

Ye i sorta see what u mean-thats the closest anybody here has come to a rational argument!Still you cant deny that the foetus is a lot closer to being a human than a sperm cell.

-------------------------------
So following the reasoning that it is acceptable to kill a fetus as it is as yet not a fully sentient human...What about babies, children (children are well into childhood before they become conscious) and severelly mentally disabled people-Do we then, by the logic of the left, have the right to kill them if we cant support them or even if we dont want them???-Remember this is definately not my opinion, just your's followed to its logical conclusion-An argument frighteningly similar to Hitler's on the issue of disabled people.

I think that the left-in terms of homosexuality, feminism, rascism and immigration, poverty etc..-is mostly the most ethical political ideology but the issue of abortion is the exception to the rule.

So suppose I choose to lie and say that you're "remarkably intelligent" posts have convinced and I am now pro-choice will I be readmitted to the ranks of the rest of the communists here:laugh:?I'll give it a try....

[RedFlagComrade]

Im Pro-choice!

[Unicorn]

So suppose I choose to lie and say that you're "remarkably intelligent" posts have convinced and I am now pro-choice

...

Im Pro-choice!
The guy is still an anti-choice moron.

[apathy maybe]

So suppose I choose to lie and say that you're "remarkably intelligent" posts have convinced and I am now pro-choice will I be readmitted to the ranks of the rest of the communists here?I'll give it a try....
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. You actually have to post why and what changed your mind, or else demonstrate in another way your changed opinion.

As for the rest of your post, there is so much stuff explaining the difference around the forums, I suggest you do a search for "abortion" and for "Singer" and you will find some discussions along those lines, and what is wrong with that argument.

[RedFlagComrade]

The guy is still an anti-choice moron.

Thanks for spelling it out for all the poor dim people who couldnt possibly have mustered up the collosal mental capacity to make that connection.;)

[Jazzratt]

ANYWAY-AS I SAID MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE I DONT HAVE VERY STRONG VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT OF ABORTION, I SIMPLY HAVE A MILD BARELY-FORMED OPINION THAT IT IS WRONG!:rolleyes:Not enough to get me banned surely?

Calm down. You aren't banned and you won't be unrestricted if you simply post inane blocks of all caps. What I suggest you do is continue posting in this part of the board, try to enjoy yourself and if you happen to change your views don't hesitate to express them. Of course if you don't want to do this and instead want to continue with this irritating behaviour you could always fuck off and die.

[Sky]

What do I have to do to be rehabilitated? How is such a decision made and how long can it take? I have sufficiently demonstrated that I do not subscribe to an opposing ideology but instead interpret the prevailing ideology at this message board in a way different from most members but similar to some (Hoxhaists) .

[Kronos]

I want to say this as lightly as possible to whoever just restricted me: your interpretation of anything I have said which you consider sexist is a result of your misunderstanding what I said, and your failure to ask for clarification before you restrict me.

That aside, I just made this reply for the "age of consent" thread. If this changes your mind regarding my restriction...good for you. In the future, before administration jumps to conclusions, feel free to ask me to explain in terms which you would understand, any of the points I make in my posts.


I propose a boycott on sex until men learn how to give orgasms and not consider it solely a woman's problem that she cannot orgasm but understand that you are just as culpable due to your ignorance about what you are doing and that sex is a two-way street. And the rest of your statements were pseudo-chauvinistic 'spending time with the offspring' 'strengthening the family bond.' Please.My goodness! Arguments in the other thread got you all stirred up so you put your defenses on and go looking for a fight? Well it ain't me, babe. You misunderstood my point, so I shall make it again with a little more elaboration.

Sex is a means to achieve two ends: reproduction or pleasure. People who have sex should, by virtue of this, be capable of achieving one of those two ends. Both sexes must be a certain age before they can achieve one of those two ends. My point about the female (the same for a male) was that at certain ages, a girl is not physically capable of experiencing pleasure while having sex....by the simple fact that her sexual organs have not matured to the point where her body can produce an orgasm. If this is so, then to have sex, without the capacity to experience an orgasm, is to perform a charity/service for the partner. In this sense the appropriate ends stated above are not mutual, and one will be exploited for the pleasure of the other.

Comprehende?


But where do you draw the line of how old one has to be?The line must be drawn between where pleasure is possible, and where it is impossible. With the male, although an orgasm cannot be achieved at certain young ages, stimulating the penis can still be pleasurable. With the female it is different- at young ages the vagina is not developed enough to receive an erection and be penetrated, and if this is tried, it would hurt like hell. So intercourse is a different matter than other sexual acts. The other sexual acts must be deemed appropriate by a majority vote. If everyone in the society thinks it is okay for a young girl to give a male a blow job....then so be it. Similarly, it can be okay for a male to perform oral sex on a young female, if she confirms that it is pleasurable for her.

As perverted as all this sounds, the only imperative that is necessary to establish laws regarding sexual acts is that they be pleasurable. Sexuality today is biased and prejudiced because of religious indoctrination. Although many of the sexual ethics of the modern world are acceptable, they are not founded or determined by biological or scientific facts. For example, it is a scientific fact that oral sex could feel good for a young girl. It is not a scientific fact that young girls should not have oral sex because God would be pissed, or because it would not be biologically sound.

[RedAnarchist]

You're an obvious sexist. Look at this posts of yours -



Right? Building a facade of compassion for the public eye has always been a trend for celebrities. At some point, their conscience bites them- they suddenly realize they are filthy rich, haven't worked a day in their lives, and might end up the subject in some tabloid scandal if they don't do some charity or speak out against oppression in some country off the map.

Remember Tommy Lee's *****...what's her name....the blond chick with hepatitis? Pamela, that's right. You know she's all into PETA and donates money to the organization. Same situation as the above. Suddenly it dawns on her what a scumbag she is.....so she better do something fast, she thinks.

See, it is only because they have so much money that they pretend to be interested in such things as charity. How much do you want to bet if Pamela had to decide between buying a pair of fake tits and....saving a bunny rabbit from laboratory testing....she'd pick the tits?


Please, comrades, don't degrade our sisters. Our women are sacred, and they should not be used as sexual objects (outside of the terms I stated above).

And this latest one -


Ideally, women should begin reproducing immediately after a substantial phenotypical conditioning has occured (when that time is...I have no fucking idea), and not long after they are biologically mature (physically capable of reproducing). The earlier the woman produces a child, the more time she has to spend with her offspring, thereby strengthening and enriching the quality of the family bond.

The fine line to be determined is when this age is: have the appropriate phenotypes been developed by say, age eighteen, or should she wait longer before reproducing so that she can acquire better, more evolved characteristics? The importance of the phenotype, as opposed to the genotype, is that it is procured and developed through environmental conditioning and influence....so that the following generation would be born equipped with traits which are superior and "aligned" with environmental circumstances. To best accommodate the human being to his environment, a period should be alloted for phenotypical development.

The father, of course, should be selected initially by eugenic standards, which would be determined by a consensus of specialized scientists. After the health and intelligence became better for the average citizen, everyone would be encouraged to reproduce.....but until that time, citizens should trust in the judgments made by the specialists. I mean to say that people would feel no sense of lost rights or privileges if they were advised not to reproduce. By the same token, there would be no concept of the "private consumerist family" that exists in capitalist society, so members of society would not be alienated from anyone else- essentially you have one big family which would cooperate together. The child of one couple would be culturally related to another couple that didn't reproduce, for example. Part of the significance and "special emotional sentiment" in having a child is due to false metaphysical ideologies, such as the importance of perpetuating one's own genes, despite the constitution and health of the parents. There are people out there who have bloodlines full of hereditary diseases, and yet they feel they should reproduce because "God said be fruitful, yada, yada, yada."

But you see my point above, regarding the importance of reproducing sooner. A mother who bears offspring at age eighteen will have a far longer life with her offspring than if she had waited until she were in her late twenties.

What we need, comrades, is a new Sparta. In less than five generations we would be breeding the ubermensch.

Concerning the age of consent for sex as a means of pleasure only....that's a difficult issue to decide on. Certainly a female shouldn't be encouraged to have sex until she, herself, was capable of experiencing an orgasm, or else the pleasure would not be mutual, and she would be exploited for only the male's pleasure. Also, people would need an entirely different mentality to be sexually active at young ages. The atmosphere today, because of religion and other cultural institutions, has stigmatized sex morally, thereby causing people to feel shameful about it. First the air must be cleared of these old customs before a more liberal approach to sex is taken.

[freakazoid]

and your failure to ask for clarification before you restrict me.

They have a tendency to do that.


You're an obvious sexist. Look at this posts of yours -

What does that have to do with sexism?


And this latest one -

Some of the things in there kind of put me off, mostly the part about eugenics. But see here is the thing, let him explain himself before taking drastic action.

[Dystisis]

He seems liberal about sex. There are some other viewpoints I don't agree with, but fuck people who can't deal with other viewpoints.

[Kronos]

RA, if I had made a cynical remark about a male celebrity, rather than Pamela Anderson, would I be making sexist comments? Or would I have to be a female in order to charged with making a sexist comment? Okay, here's a neat question: what if I were a hermaphrodite? Would it be possible for me to make sexist comments if I were both genders?

I don't care what gender Pamela Anderson is.....she's still an idiot. So then, if my criticism is based on her actions, and not her gender, am I still guilty of sexism? Clearly not. But I am still guilty of making offensive comments about a person. If I am persecuted for such comments, then leftists would be guilty of making offensive comments about fascists, nationalists, and capitalists. Therefore such a judgment would be hypocritical on the leftist's part.

The second quote, where I said women are sacred, was said in defense of woman. The use of the term "sacred" does not have to apply to inanimate objects in order to be used meaningfully. You took the comment entirely out of context. I was arguing that woman are just as important as men.

The final quote concerned what I believe is ideal, not what is only possible, or appropriate, or proper, or even necessary. Part of this ideal involves all people willingly supporting these measures, so that they are not oppressive or restricting. I would not support a system such as the one mentioned in my post unless all people agreed. In this sense, none of what I said was sexist, but only what might be considered a radical alternative by most people. You may of course argue with me about the legitimacy of my idea, but you cannot persecute me for my views if part of that view is the demand that everyone agrees with it.

I am technically cleared of all charges, your honor, and I rest my case.

[Kronos]

Capitalists, don't think for a minute that I am your friend because I am locked in this cell with you. You come near me and I'll shake you up. I'm bustin outta here and you ain't following me either.

[resumes doing push-ups on the floor]

[Kronos]

Damn Debora, why you gonna do me like that? Get me out of here, please. Make me work or something...I'll clean the latrines....but don't keep me locked in here with these capitalist scumbags. Look, I was reading Beauvior before you even knew who Marx was. Okay, probably not, but still, I'm telling you I am not a sexist dammit!

[Kronos]

Kronos - First, calm down man, there's no need to be aggressive to me about this. Second, you need to actually consider what I am telling you - your argument is correct, but only if you presuppose that your capacity to reason correctly is infallible.Thank you for your reply, comrade Olive Trees. I look forward to our future discussions regarding the sophistry of Cartesian dualism, and am confident that I can convince you otherwise. However, I have recently been branded a counterrevolutionary and AM LOCKED IN A CELL WITH CAPITALISTS, so I ask that you wait patiently for my return.

I will be delivering my terms to the counsel later today. If my demands are not met, Dystisis, Freakazoid and I are splitting the workers party and forming a faction of our own. We will take a short leave of absence, and return later with an army of peasants to overthrow the existing order.

If you wish to be useful, you might circulate a petition for my release. If this is not possible, you must prepare yourself for the war that is soon to come.

Yours,

Comrade Kronos

[Kronos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90Z5FGqwZg&feature=related

[RedAnarchist]

Thank you for your reply, comrade Olive Trees. I look forward to our future discussions regarding the sophistry of Cartesian dualism, and am confident that I can convince you otherwise. However, I have recently been branded a counterrevolutionary and AM LOCKED IN A CELL WITH CAPITALISTS, so I ask that you wait patiently for my return.

I will be delivering my terms to the counsel later today. If my demands are not met, Dystisis, Freakazoid and I are splitting the workers party and forming a faction of our own. We will take a short leave of absence, and return later with an army of peasants to overthrow the existing order.

If you wish to be useful, you might circulate a petition for my release. If this is not possible, you must prepare yourself for the war that is soon to come.

Yours,

Comrade Kronos

:lol:

Seriously, you don't think this is going to help do you?

[freakazoid]

If my demands are not met, Dystisis, Freakazoid and I are splitting the workers party and forming a faction of our own. We will take a short leave of absence, and return later with an army of peasants to overthrow the existing order.

/me runs and grabs all his survival gear and guns. Viva la revolution! lol, :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b90Z5FGqwZg&feature=related

lol

[Black Dagger]

Kronos, please read the board rules.
Do not make threads about your restriction - in future please use the 'unfair restriction?' sticky in this forum (which is where these posts now reside).

[Bud Struggle]

Capitalists, don't think for a minute that I am your friend because I am locked in this cell with you. You come near me and I'll shake you up. I'm bustin outta here and you ain't following me either.

[resumes doing push-ups on the floor]


Welcome to the Dark Side, Kronos. You are now one of us. :redstar2000: :lol:

It's actually nice here--no constant looking over your sholder to see if the KGB is following you. No purges in the middle of the night, no worring about if you posts are Marxist enough, no secret tribunals. Just normal Capitalist freedoms here in the OI.

You can actually say what you THINK (as opposed to what people want you to think) here in the OI.

Ask for stock market tips. Buy a BMW. Drink some single malt Scotch. Enjoy! :lol:

[Sky]

What do I have to do to be rehabilitated? How is such a decision made and how long can it take? I have sufficiently demonstrated that I do not subscribe to an opposing ideology but instead interpret the prevailing ideology at this message board in a way different from most members but similar to some (Hoxhaists)

[Dros]

What do I have to do to be rehabilitated? How is such a decision made and how long can it take? I have sufficiently demonstrated that I do not subscribe to an opposing ideology but instead interpret the prevailing ideology at this message board in a way different from most members but similar to some (Hoxhaists)

The decision is made by a poll in the CC which is not at any time in the conceivable future going to vote to unrestrict you. You have demonstrated that you are what would be conceived of as an OI, especially your positions on gender relations and sexual identity.

Sorry. But you will be in OI for a VERY long time.

[Sky]

especially your positions on gender relations and sexual identity.
My alleged positions on gender relations and sexual identity (issues that I've seldom commented on) had nothing to do with being restricted to this section. The charge against me was that I'm an ''Islamist apologist'' which I have demonstrated to not be true.

[Luís Henrique]

I want to say this as lightly as possible to whoever just restricted me: your interpretation of anything I have said which you consider sexist is a result of your misunderstanding what I said, and your failure to ask for clarification before you restrict me.

You been restricted for this:


Ideally, women should begin reproducing immediately after a substantial phenotypical conditioning has occured (when that time is...I have no fucking idea), and not long after they are biologically mature (physically capable of reproducing). The earlier the woman produces a child, the more time she has to spend with her offspring, thereby strengthening and enriching the quality of the family bond.

Which is undeniably a sexist position. Women are not means of production and shouldn't be "used" to reproduce the species.

Also this:


The father, of course, should be selected initially by eugenic standards, which would be determined by a consensus of specialized scientists.

Nor are men means of production.

And, finally, this:


What we need, comrades, is a new Sparta. In less than five generations we would be breeding the ubermensch.

Support for slavery is definitely an opposing ideology, and is not allowed in the main board.

Indeed, given the racist overtones of that last comment, you are lucky to have not been banned.

Luís Henrique

[Kronos]

Which is undeniably a sexist position. Women are not means of production and shouldn't be "used" to reproduce the species.

Not at all. Those criterion, among others not mentioned, would undoubtedly be more progressive, when compared to what is accepted today as ordinary and average. This has nothing to do with "means of production" or being "used" or any other communist party slogans you wish to use when to feel offended by something said which is not familiar to you.

If your concern is "freedom to do whatever you want", then of course there should be no ideals held which might envisage ways to enhance the health and culture of the human species. If you come to realize that this "freedom" can be extremely detrimental to the species in general, you might learn to imagine alternative ways to restrict, control, and administrate that freedom. It is this unlimited freedom that is sending this planet toward oblivion, if you haven't noticed.

Furthermore, when I propose such an ideal I do not mean to speak as if I am imposing it upon people who would be forced to conform- I do not uphold those ideals unless everyone does. In a better world, people not only would understand the progressive nature of such an ideal but would support it with great enthusiasm.


Support for slavery is definitely an opposing ideology, and is not allowed in the main board.

I meant the eugenics aspect of the Sparta, not the slavery. I am opposed to slavery in every way.

Because Nazi eugenics was a laughable joke, and hardly a legitimate science, it does not mean that eugenics can not be a science. Eugenics is only to apply highly structured rules to breeding, and is no less of a science than allowing anybody the privilege to reproduce. So you now you are forced to alter your argument or abandon it entirely: eugenics cannot be counterrevolutionary simple because it isn't an active field in science.....since neither is this unlimited freedom granted to everyone to reproduce. Think about that.

[Jazzratt]

If your concern is "freedom to do whatever you want", then of course there should be no ideals held which might envisage ways to enhance the health and culture of the human species. If you come to realize that this "freedom" can be extremely detrimental to the species in general, you might learn to imagine alternative ways to restrict, control, and administrate that freedom. It is this unlimited freedom that is sending this planet toward oblivion, if you haven't noticed.

Ah, I extend my warmest welcome to you, latest OI pond-scum assholio! Let's look at what you're arguing for here shall we? You sound a lot like those dickhole psuedo-transhumanists that believe that, in order for humanity to advance we have to force change upon people. YOu go one step further though and declare, quite hilariously that we're all fucked because we have too much freedom - now if your standards of "too much" freedom include today's world then you, Señor cabrón, are positing a very scary alternative indeed. However you suddenly change tack in your next paragraph:


Furthermore, when I propose such an ideal I do not mean to speak as if I am imposing it upon people who would be forced to conform- I do not uphold those ideals unless everyone does. In a better world, people not only would understand the progressive nature of such an ideal but would support it with great enthusiasm.

The old "the world would be great if everyone thought like me" saw. The thing is, and a point I think you've missed, is that we don't need eugenics, we don't need such primitive breeding programs - leave that to dog breeders - we have something a lot more reliable, sane and workable in the form of genetic engineering. Through this technology we don't have to force women to give up their reproductive freedoms for a glorious future good they won't ever live to see - we won't have to sterilise any of the population either. So why is it that you continue on your misguided, fuckwitted quest?


I meant the eugenics aspect of the Sparta, not the slavery. I am opposed to slavery in every way.

It's laughable that you consider the superstitious, patriarchal breeding programs of a (thankfully) long dead civilisation at all compatible with contemporary progressive politics. You're a fucking joke, go back to wanking over 300.


Because Nazi eugenics was a laughable joke, and hardly a legitimate science, it does not mean that eugenics can not be a science.

Indeed, but given that eugenics still leads to unpredictable results and involves the curbing of freedoms it's preferable to find a more advanced alternative. Can you think of one, shit-for-brains? (Here's a clue, I mentioned it in bold earlier.)


Eugenics is only to apply highly structured rules to breeding, and is no less of a science than allowing anybody the privilege to reproduce. So you now you are forced to alter your argument or abandon it entirely: eugenics cannot be counterrevolutionary simple because it isn't an active field in science.....since neither is this unlimited freedom granted to everyone to reproduce. Think about that.

It's wonderfully pretentious that you ended your message with "think about that" as if you'd managed to pull some kind of argument from between your sweaty buttocks, alas you're just throwing shit around the enclosure like the monkey you are. The main problem progressives have with your "science" isn't that it's not a science (it isn't, by the way - it's to modern genetic science what alchemy is to current chemical science) but that it's bullshit authoritarian wank.

[Kronos]

You sound a lot like those dickhole psuedo-transhumanists that believe that, in order for humanity to advance we have to force change upon people.Who is this "we" and what does "advance" entail? The "we" would be everyone, democratically, and the "advance" is a question of: what does the human species want to do on this planet (and elsewhere) before the sun burns up its fuel, explodes, and disintegrates the entire solar system.


quite hilariously that we're all fucked because we have too much freedomCapitalist/consumerist society has too much freedom. The degree of freedom is determined by the wealth of the classes participating in that discourse. I do not mean the metaphysical notion of freedom, but the material, physical exercise of freedom- there is too much production, too much consumption, and too much wastes. The world could use a good dose of minimalism and anarcho-primitivism to counter the democracy/liberalism that is running rampant here in the US. Either this, or socialism, would put the brakes on this "cesspool of excitement".


we have something a lot more reliable, sane and workable in the form of genetic engineering.Same song, different dance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics


go back to wanking over 300. That movie rocked.

Anyway, you were very hostile in that post, Jazzmouse, or rat, I meant. I don't know who you are, where you live, or what you do, but if you are another college kid who works at the local drive-through, you aren't worth the costs it takes to keep you alive. Here is a suggestion: if you want to do something revolutionary.....shoot yourself.

[Kronos]

[edited]

Delete this one please. I changed my mind.

[Jazzratt]

Who is this "we" and what does "advance" entail? The "we" would be everyone, democratically, and the "advance" is a question of: what does the human species want to do on this planet (and elsewhere) before the sun burns up its fuel, explodes, and disintegrates the entire solar system.

Humanity, generally, seems to want to be alive, proliferate and enjoy themselves. With this in mind then, any system worth its salt must grant not only maximum [possible freedoms but maximum possible resources for the maximum possible time (through efficiently planned production.).


Capitalist/consumerist society has too much freedom.

Get a job.


The degree of freedom is determined by the wealth of the classes participating in that discourse. I do not mean the metaphysical notion of freedom, but the material, physical exercise of freedom- there is too much production, too much consumption, and too much wastes.

Bollocks. THere can never be too much production or consumption - only too much waste. And waste is generated by poor production methods, not by freedom.


The world could use a good dose of minimalism and anarcho-primitivism

You could use a good dose of size 12s up the jacksee.


to counter the democracy/liberalism that is running rampant here in the US. Either this, or socialism, would put the brakes on this "cesspool of excitement".

What the fuck are you even talking about, you deranged fruitcake?


Same song, different dance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I know what eugenics is dumbfuck, I just don't think it's useful to us, especially as it requires us to subjugate roughly half of humanity to serve us as living incubators for some crackpotÜbermensch dreamed up by Untermenschen scum like yourself.


Anyway, you were very hostile in that post, Jazzmouse, or rat, I meant.

My words may have been hostile to you as an individual, but your ideas are hostile to my class and species, so fuck you.


I don't know who you are, where you live, or what you do, but if you are another college kid who works at the local drive-through, you aren't worth the costs it takes to keep you alive. Here is a suggestion: if you want to do something revolutionary.....shoot yourself.

Whinge, whinge, whinge. Just do something constructive and stop whining about your restriction or sod off you boring turd.

[Kronos]

Humanity, generally, seems to want to be alive, proliferate and enjoy themselves. With this in mind then, any system worth its salt must grant not only maximum possible freedoms but maximum possible resources for the maximum possible time (through efficiently planned production.).

Well said.....now if you could figure out the bold.....


Get a job.

If you only knew.


Bollocks. THere can never be too much production or consumption - only too much waste. And waste is generated by poor production methods, not by freedom.

That's funny. You are essentially saying "there can never be too many apple trees, farmers, or apple eaters- only too many apples" and "it is not that the Stevensons have five TVs, but that the factory that, by demand, produces one million TVs a day so people like the Stevensons can have five TVs, is what causes waste and pollution."


You could use a good dose of size 12s up the jacksee.

Relax, comrade. You don't want to try to put your combat-boots up my ass. I would break every bone in your body and send you to your mother in a box.


Whinge, whinge, whinge. Just do something constructive and stop whining about your restriction or sod off you boring turd.

I'm fine man. I had a chat with Nietzsche the other day and he brought me back to my senses. The truth is, communism is only the lesser of two evils, capitalism being the worst. I do endorse first socialism, and hope that communism can one day prevail, but this is not to say that I respect or admire the typical modern communist, or even the average working class individual. Most of you are full of envy and resentment and have simply taken up the communist banner to express that deep, hidden pathology. The modern capitalist is a gluttonous pig, of course, but the typical communist is a reactionary weakling. The communist is more important than the pig, obviously, because he does all the work...and could survive without the pig. The despicable pig needs the communist to survive and is helpless without him.

So the communist gets thumbs up for that. He may be a pitiful creature, but the fucker can work when he has to. Ironic, isn't it? The pitiful creature supports the despicable creature. Man, I'm losing my interest in humanity all together. It has really become a tragic comedy for me.

Anyway, there must be a comfortable medium between these two polar opposites. A socialist meritocracy, perhaps, but there must always be a central ruling class which operates as the state. Communism will not work unless human nature is radically redefined, that is to say, the 21rst century man WILL NEVER survive a communist system.

[Jazzratt]

Well said.....now if you could figure out the bold.....

Done. (http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=103)



That's funny. You are essentially saying "there can never be too many apple trees, farmers, or apple eaters- only too many apples" and "it is not that the Stevensons have five TVs, but that the factory that, by demand, produces one million TVs a day so people like the Stevensons can have five TVs, is what causes waste and pollution."

If you're going to produce 1 million TVs a day, then yes you should arrange them to minimise waste. The worst thing you can do for people is to force them to live below their maximum possible energy allocation.


Relax, comrade. You don't want to try to put your combat-boots up my ass. I would break every bone in your body and send you to your mother in a box.

I'm sure you're a very big tough man and all the people in your local comic book shop agree.


I'm fine man. I had a chat with Nietzsche the other day and he brought me back to my senses.

Yeah, don't worry in a few years time you'll be over that one.


The truth is, communism is only the lesser of two evils, capitalism being the worst. I do endorse first socialism, and hope that communism can one day prevail, but this is not to say that I respect or admire the typical modern communist, or even the average working class individual. Most of you are full of envy and resentment and have simply taken up the communist banner to express that deep, hidden pathology.

You sure it was Nietzsche not Freud you were talking to there, Dr. Armchair?


The modern capitalist is a gluttonous pig, of course, but the typical communist is a reactionary weakling. The communist is more important than the pig, obviously, because he does all the work...and could survive without the pig. The despicable pig needs the communist to survive and is helpless without him.

Do you ever leave your mum's basement? Like, at all?


So the communist gets thumbs up for that. He may be a pitiful creature, but the fucker can work when he has to. Ironic, isn't it? The pitiful creature supports the despicable creature. Man, I'm losing my interest in humanity all together. It has really become a tragic comedy for me.

Yeah, don't worry - once you leave puberty you'll either grow out of your stupid misanthropy bullshit or shoot up your university before turning the gun on yourself.


Anyway, there must be a comfortable medium between these two polar opposites. A socialist meritocracy, perhaps, but there must always be a central ruling class which operates as the state.

Do you always make stupid fucking assertions, or are you doing this just for me?


Communism will not work unless human nature is radically redefined, that is to say, the 21rst century man WILL NEVER survive a communist system.

Yeah, yeah we have to radically alter the thinking of the herd or whaterver. Stop blowing smoke out of your ass - eh?

[Dros]

My alleged positions on gender relations and sexual identity (issues that I've seldom commented on) had nothing to do with being restricted to this section. The charge against me was that I'm an ''Islamist apologist'' which I have demonstrated to not be true.

Your views on homosexuality and gender are reactionary. You aren't going to "get out" on a "technicality" because you've replaced one reactionary position with another.

[Bud Struggle]

Your views on homosexuality and gender are reactionary.

Hey! I'm a Recationary and Sky's positions on those things are way more old fashoned than mine. :bored: I'm insulted.:cursing:

[Kronos]

If you're going to produce 1 million TVs a day, then yes you should arrange them to minimise waste. The worst thing you can do for people is to force them to live below their maximum possible energy allocation.


No Einstein, you should minimize desires, then you don't have to bother with complicated waste management. Here's some inside information for you: half the shit you want is the result of being persuaded by advertisement that you should have it, or need it. Even the communist suffers from consumer fetishism. Minimalism must pervade all aspects of consumerism, or both the resources and environment are in jeopardy. Again though, I already told you the sun is going to explode and destroy everything one day, so it really doesn't matter what you do "meanwhile". Ah....but what if we play our cards right and devise a way to immigrate a large number of people to another solar system? And hey, what if, because of this "limitless freedom to have as much as you want, yada, yada", this chance is compromised and the earth is destroyed because of it? So we are racing against a long term goal- according to you, everybody on earth can have fifteen TVs, and if the combined resource appropriation and waste management involved becomes an obstacle to achieving this longer term goal...fuck it. At least the human species existed for millions of years and got to have a TV in every room of the house, rather than existing indefinitely, throughout the far reaches of space, with only one TV?

Have I been reading too many science fiction novels? No. I've never read one in my life (I think I read Gremlins when I was ten). This shit is common sense.

Extend this example to encompass consumerism in general. Any one individual case is a minor detail....but when you have 4.8 billion people doing it for thousands of years.....well, you can figure it out.


I'm sure you're a very big tough man and all the people in your local comic book shop agree.

Actually I'm not very big at all. 5 foot 11, 180 lbs. But I have the speed of a mongoose and the reflexes of a cat. (thanks, Ace Ventura) And I am a very, very angry man. I consider myself a sociopath, and in a fit of rage I might be inclined to rip your leg off and beat you with it.


You sure it was Nietzsche not Freud you were talking to there, Dr. Armchair?

Remember Fritz was before Freud, and Freud based much of his psychoanalysis on the theories of Fritz ("Nietzsche understood himself better than any man"), although Fritz never made anything more than metaphors of psychology- they were not testable hypotheses. Freud, on the other hand, utilized behaviorism and the scientific method when he wasn't wasting his time talking to that nut, Jung.

Deny as you might, your original reaction toward the capitalist is that he is not working, while you are working for him. You consider this unfair....but what is "fair"? Is this a metaphysical concept? It has to be, because organic life is fundamentally exploitative. Therefore, it is your own power manifesting here as a form of resentment (just as the religious reacted to the stronger, more brutal type of "immoralist" man)- at this point you cannot comprehend what is "fair", because in this universe there is no such thing. So, "unfair" only means "he gets to exploit me and I don't get to exploit him." This is the initial comprehension of the experience and demonstrates nothing more than a battle of willpowers. The pathology of the communist is reactionary and wishes not only to level all powers, but doubles that audacity by denying his own will to power. Again, to base your communist ideology on some metaphysical notion of "rights" and "fairness" is dishonest, or ignorant, since there are no such things outside of forced intervention by those who have the power to do so.


Do you ever leave your mum's basement? Like, at all?

Yes. I packed up my GI Joe actions figures, wiped the snot from my nose, and rode away on my bicycle.....when I turned thirty.


Yeah, don't worry - once you leave puberty you'll either grow out of your stupid misanthropy bullshit or shoot up your university before turning the gun on yourself.

Wait.....you mean I'm still going through puberty, at 33 years old? Hot damn! This means I can expect another inch or so of penis growth? Hey, hey, wait a minute.....don't think for a second that I don't have a big johnson. My misanthropy is not a result of penis envy. And I don't go to school either. I dropped out of the eleventh grade.


Do you always make stupid fucking assertions, or are you doing this just for me?

When an assertion and a head come into collision, is it always the assertion that is hollow?

Yes you idiot. I meant what I said. A centralized vanguard party that makes executive decisions concerning all legislation. If there isn't....the only thing you people will ever agree on is the color red (special thanks to 666 for that one) And this is only on the way to communism. Lord knows what will happen once it is accomplished.....one thousand years from now, if ever.

[Bud Struggle]

....the only thing you people will ever agree on is the color red (special thanks to 666 for that one).

Best line ever, on RevLeft. :lol:

[Jazzratt]

No Einstein, you should minimize desires, then you don't have to bother with complicated waste management.

So rather than dealing with a simple question of engineering technology you have to instead engineer something as complex as a society?


Here's some inside information for you: half the shit you want is the result of being persuaded by advertisement that you should have it, or need it.Where the hell did you pull this "fact" (complete with a bogus figure - 50%), from?


Even the communist suffers from consumer fetishism. Minimalism must pervade all aspects of consumerism, or both the resources and environment are in jeopardy.Tell you what, you can fuck off back up the trees with the monkeys you desperately want to emulate. The rest of us will have technology.


Again though, I already told you the sun is going to explode and destroy everything one day,It really wasn't a revelation to me.


so it really doesn't matter what you do "meanwhile". Ah....but what if we play our cards right and devise a way to immigrate a large number of people to another solar system?Then the scope of "meanwhile" changes from the point when our sun can no longer sustain us (hint: long before it explodes) to the point at which entropy finally does its work.


And hey, what if, because of this "limitless freedom to have as much as you want, yada, yada", this chance is compromised and the earth is destroyed because of it?Then the earth is destroyed. You answered your own question, genius.


So we are racing against a long term goal- according to you, everybody on earth can have fifteen TVs, and if the combined resource appropriation and waste management involved becomes an obstacle to achieving this longer term goal...fuck it. At least the human species existed for millions of years and got to have a TV in every room of the house, rather than existing indefinitely, throughout the far reaches of space, with only one TV? You're making the same mistake that all the other howling anti-communist cretins make on this site, you assume that just because you need to make up for your pencil dick with material objects everyone in a future society will do too.You're probably going to be talking about the irrefutable existance of human nature next, it's like you guys aren't even bothering any more.


I consider myself a sociopathThen have yourself committed, so that normal people don't have to put up with your incessant yammering.


Remember Fritz was before Freud, and Freud based much of his psychoanalysis on the theories of Fritz ("Nietzsche understood himself better than any man"), although Fritz never made anything more than metaphors of psychology- they were not testable hypotheses. Freud, on the other hand, utilized behaviorism and the scientific method when he wasn't wasting his time talking to that nut, Jung. The things you learn from matchboxes, eh.


Deny as you might, your original reaction toward the capitalist is that he is not working, while you are working for him. You consider this unfair....but what is "fair"? Is this a metaphysical concept? It has to be, because organic life is fundamentally exploitative. Therefore, it is your own power manifesting here as a form of resentment (just as the religious reacted to the stronger, more brutal type of "immoralist" man)- at this point you cannot comprehend what is "fair", because in this universe there is no such thing. So, "unfair" only means "he gets to exploit me and I don't get to exploit him." This is the initial comprehension of the experience and demonstrates nothing more than a battle of willpowers. The pathology of the communist is reactionary and wishes not only to level all powers, but doubles that audacity by denying his own will to power. Again, to base your communist ideology on some metaphysical notion of "rights" and "fairness" is dishonest, or ignorant, since there are no such things outside of forced intervention by those who have the power to do so. Ah, you've fallen into that annoying habit that Nietzsche loving idealists tend to do, which is to obfuscate the fact they know nothing by selecting a few catch phrases and sprinkling throughout their own half-baked writings. Although most of them seem to at least stick to words they know the meaning of, you seem to have co-opted "reactionary" into your bizarre lexicon - having changed it into just another word for "bad".


Wait.....you mean I'm still going through puberty, at 33 years old?Oh, you're 33? That's disappointing. Senility usually sets in a little later.


When an assertion and a head come into collision, is it always the assertion that is hollow?No. But when an assertion is made by a drooling spacker it pays to be cautious.


A centralized vanguard party that makes executive decisions concerning all legislation. If there isn't....the only thing you people will ever agree on is the color red (special thanks to 666 for that one)Ah yes 666, noted sociologist and communist theory.


And this is only on the way to communism. Lord knows what will happen once it is accomplished.....one thousand years from now, if ever.Read a book or GTFO.

[Kronos]

So rather than dealing with a simple question of engineering technology you have to instead engineer something as complex as a society?Absolutely. All aspects of humanity are capable of being engineered, even down to how and why you choose your favorite pair of under-roos.


Where the hell did you pull this "fact" (complete with a bogus figure - 50%), from?I pulled it from my ass. I'd say confidently that since the advent of electronic communication, radio, TV, and media in general, the human psyche has been fostered and developed by aesthetic propaganda. Consumerism is a condition which is under constant mutation, such that what is required by any generation, for that generation to feel "satisfied", exceeds what was required by the prior generation to feel satisfied, while the generations do not have any substantial physiological difference. This means that while the human being remains the same, with the same basic needs, his tolerance for pleasure continues to increase so that he expects that he should have more. I consider this an acute form of neurosis and pathology, both which have evolved through the medium of obsessive consumerism. Is this "wrong"? Certainly not, but it is a peculiar condition. I am only saying that had such technology not developed at such a fast pace, the very same human beings might exist today without having created such an environmental urgency, as a result of their surrogate activity as consumers.

You are twenty years old. That's generation Y. The lost generation. Your head is full of an amorphous blob of crap, no doubt. Your hobbies, bondage for one, is a ridiculous fantasy used to compensate for a failed sense sexual liberation- you do it to be rebellious, daring, perverted, and anything else morality has deemed taboo.....but you are faking every bit of it. It is cheesy pretentious satire and nothing more. How could you possibly get off on distributing sadistic acts if you know she/he (which ever you prefer) is faking the response to it? Never mind. Don't answer. The music you like (I can only imagine) is probably synthetic garbage reproduced by machines with minimal acoustic instrumental work. How you establish your identity as a consumer (what you wear, your mannerisms, disposition, etc.) is laden with trend expressions, I'm sure.

Ah yes, the "generation Y communist". I coulda predicted this prototype with mathematical precision before you were born- "okay, here they come, the new crop of communists. The metro-techno-digital automatons who might as well be silicon based life forms. Yeah, I'm an anarcho-primitivist before anything else. Half of generation Y should be exterminated because you are already dead.


Tell you what, you can fuck off back up the trees with the monkeys Well I will, thank you very much. From the the top of the tree I can watch you destroy yourself, with a better view.


Then the scope of "meanwhile" changes from the point when our sun can no longer sustain us (hint: long before it explodes) to the point at which entropy finally does its work.The plan, if you cannot figure it out on your own, would be to ensure that the earth and its resources are not ruined before humanity devises a way to travel long distances through space. Because this kind of technology is very radical when compared to what we have currently, and would take quite some time to develop, we must be EXTREMELY CAREFUL with how we manage the earths resources and environment, MEANWHILE. If in five hundred years we DON'T have the technology to travel such distances BECAUSE we can't get our shit together and remained gluttonous consumers because of this communist mantra "we are free, brothers and sisters, to have anything we want, blah, blah, blah," I'd say that qualifies as a tragedy. My god, if we haven't colonized the moon in the next seventy-five years....we got serious problems.


Then have yourself committedI already tried that. I always end up smarter than the shrinks, so they can't help me.


Ah, you've fallen into that annoying habit that Nietzsche loving idealists tend to do, which is to obfuscate the fact they know nothing by selecting a few catch phrases and sprinkling throughout their own half-baked writings. Although most of them seem to at least stick to words they know the meaning of, you seem to have co-opted "reactionary" into your bizarre lexicon - having changed it into just another word for "bad".No, I've fallen into the convenient habit of not making enormous posts to explain in irrefutable detail what the people I am analyzing will fail to understand, or remotely understand and deny what they do, anyway. Marx is the master of materialism and economics, but his "philosophy" and "psychology" doesn't hold a candle to Nietzsche.


Read a book or GTFO.What does GTFO mean? "Get the fuck out"? I can't, you moron. I'm locked in this thread. If you mean leave the site, fuck no and fuck you. You people might be clumsy dolts, stoned/drunk, or half-retarded, but you are still better than the rest.

[Jazzratt]

Don't worry Herr scheißekopf I've not forgotten you, but right now I'm about to go to the pub so I won't be able to answer your latest outpouring of effluence.

[Bud Struggle]

lumpen, track suit wearing, anti social, violent,

stereotypically at least

In other words a Hoxhaist? :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But I'll give it a shot, hur hur hur.

By the way, as an aspiring physicist, I take objection to your completely groundless notion that the sun will explode. It will not explode. It will continue fusing hydrogen into helium for about 5 billion years, at which point it will enter the red giant phase of it's existance and expand substantially, swallowing the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth and maybe Mars. As more nuclear fuel is consumed, the Sun will throw off layers of itself, forming a planetary nebula. Once the outer layers have all gone, all the will be left will be a stellar cinder, called a white dwarf, which will slowly cool over billions of years into a black dwarf.

Here ends your astronomy lesson.


Absolutely. All aspects of humanity are capable of being engineered, even down to how and why you choose your favorite pair of under-roos.

Only in theory. In practice, there are a few obvious "strong" causes of one's choice of underwear but also many hard-to-find "weak" causes also.

Genetic engineering is simpler than trying to track all the causes that influence a single person, let alone an entire society.


You are twenty years old. That's generation Y. The lost generation. Your head is full of an amorphous blob of crap, no doubt.

You claim to be clairvoyant but display no evidence to support such a situation, so you'll forgive my skepticism while I go straight to the point and say: The age of a person making a statement has no bearing on that statement.


Your hobbies, bondage for one, is a ridiculous fantasy used to compensate for a failed sense sexual liberation- you do it to be rebellious, daring, perverted, and anything else morality has deemed taboo.....but you are faking every bit of it.

Or maybe, perhaps maybe, he just does it because he enjoys it?


It is cheesy pretentious satire and nothing more.

To you, maybe. To him, it's most likely the makings of a great night.


How could you possibly get off on distributing sadistic acts if you know she/he (which ever you prefer) is faking the response to it?

For the same reason that I murder hordes of aliens, zombies and soldiers with a submachine gun in Half-Life... Play-acting. Pretending to be something or someone else for the purposes of entertainment.


Never mind. Don't answer. The music you like (I can only imagine) is probably synthetic garbage reproduced by machines with minimal acoustic instrumental work.

It's music to my ears. And I'm positively tickled that it pisses off musical snobs like you.


How you establish your identity as a consumer (what you wear, your mannerisms, disposition, etc.) is laden with trend expressions, I'm sure.

What with me knowing the guy personally, I'd say you are completely wrong on that count. Neither me nor Jazzratt is a "goth" "chav" or any of the other "consumer identities" that you seem to despise so much.


Ah yes, the "generation Y communist". I coulda predicted this prototype with mathematical precision before you were born- "okay, here they come, the new crop of communists. The metro-techno-digital automatons who might as well be silicon based life forms.

Do you have a problem with silicon-based life? What's wrong with being made of fire and steel and electrons instead of flesh and blood and bone?


Yeah, I'm an anarcho-primitivist before anything else. Half of generation Y should be exterminated because you are already dead.

How melodramatic. Perhaps I could respond in kind by insinuating that you primmies are not really sapient, but merely a bunch of cry-baby meatbags who are barely sentient. That would be in the spirit of this discourse but it would fail to produce useful data.


Well I will, thank you very much. From the the top of the tree I can watch you destroy yourself, with a better view.

More likely you'll be caught in the downblast as we take off for worlds anew.

Want a postcard from Alpha Centauri?


The plan, if you cannot figure it out on your own, would be to ensure that the earth and its resources are not ruined before humanity devises a way to travel long distances through space. Because this kind of technology is very radical when compared to what we have currently, and would take quite some time to develop, we must be EXTREMELY CAREFUL with how we manage the earths resources and environment, MEANWHILE. If in five hundred years we DON'T have the technology to travel such distances BECAUSE we can't get our shit together and remained gluttonous consumers because of this communist mantra "we are free, brothers and sisters, to have anything we want, blah, blah, blah," I'd say that qualifies as a tragedy. My god, if we haven't colonized the moon in the next seventy-five years....we got serious problems.

While every effort should be made to start a viable society off this planet as soon as possible, the way resources are currently being wasted under class society means that it's highly likely that classless society would be able to both do that and to propel every single human being on Earth into a lifestyle that is more than sufficient and dignified.


I already tried that. I always end up smarter than the shrinks, so they can't help me.

I find it hard to trust the psychological evaluations of a self-admitted sociopath.

[freakazoid]

Whats a "chav"?

[Holden Caulfield]

lumpen, track suit wearing, anti social, violent,

stereotypically at least

[Sky]

Your views on homosexuality and gender are reactionary.
There is such a thing as burden of proof. To simply assign what positions I hold is not true.

[Kami]

Neither me nor Jazzratt is a "goth" "chav" or any of the other "consumer identities"
'tis true, neither has the slightist glint of fashion sense, never mind adhering to the fashion of a particular stereotype.


Whats a "chav"?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Chav.jpg

[Dros]

There is such a thing as burden of proof. To simply assign what positions I hold is not true.

No there's not. This is not a country. You are restricted because the majority of people in the CC believe you to be of an OI. The CC runs this board for the owner, Malte. The CC is accountable to no one but Malte. There are not rules or protocol about what the CC can and can't do regarding restriction. This is the nonnegotiable reality of administration on RevLeft.

We don't have to prove anything. We think that your positions on homosexuality and transgendered people constitute reactionary positions. So, you are now, and will continue to be restricted for the foreseeable future.

[Jazzratt]

Oh, fuck it NoXion has said it better than I ever will, if you still want to argue reply to NoXion's post and I'll batter the shit out of you (argumentatively,obviously).

[Kronos]

NoXion, you are correct...the sun will not "explode", but its expansion in the red dwarf stage will produce enough heat to devour the earth, as you mentioned. Forgive me for not using the correct term.....I left my pocket protector and physics dictionary at the house.....but you know what I fucking meant....and you wanted to pick out a detail so you could show us what you learned in class. Well I'm impressed. Call it what you want....the earth is history, eventually.


Only in theory. In practice, there are a few obvious "strong" causes of one's choice of underwear but also many hard-to-find "weak" causes also.The bolded is "only in theory". If the causes cannot be addressed, they cannot be assumed to exist. If I get Jazzmouse to admit that he likes the spiderman under-roos because he used to collect garden spiders when he was a kid, likes the colors red and blue, and would be tickled pink if he could shoot a web strand out of the palm of his hand, no other causes can be accounted for for his liking the under-roos. If I tell him "but there are also weak causes for your liking them, that we can't really know", he would find that assertion meaningless, as would we. Our desires can be analyzed only with taking into perspective the intentional properties of our choices. Forget about Freud and the sub-conscious....that shit is irrelevant. We would consider only the three reasons he submitted for his liking the spiderman under-roos and work to determine why those reasons are significant and influence his preference. In psychology, the presumption that our subjective tastes, preferences, and desires can be caused by unknown forces is null and useless.


You claim to be clairvoyant but display no evidence to support such a situation, so you'll forgive my skepticism while I go straight to the point and say: The age of a person making a statement has no bearing on that statement.
Honestly, I don't like the guy and was trying to insult him. But you are correct about the age thing: it isn't because ninety-nine out of one hundred people who believe in Santa Claus are five years old....that we can safely assume Santa Claus does not exist. Once again I am impressed. You nailed me with an ad hom. Very good.

About the next three quotes, regarding the bondage: I'm saying that because he enjoys such ridiculous crap, he has a problem. Fantasy and role-playing is not just an arbitrary act.....it has a very deep, psychological significance and is used to compensate, as a simulation, for a lack and failure to exhibit real desires. Fantasy is a "valve" which helps release inhibitions. The existence of these inhibitions is a problem, because it implies that the individual cannot honestly express what they truly desire. Fantasy is "faking the truth."

And you say "ummm....because he likes it dude", as if that is that. Right, no problem. Albert Fish liked eating small children and sticking needles into his groin. No problem.....he liked it dude.


It's music to my ears. And I'm positively tickled that it pisses off musical snobs like you.I'm sure it is, and this is so because you are simple minded. The composition of music, its complexity, is formulaic. A well written melody which utilizes a greater spectrum of a scale, for example, is far more elaborate than one which moves simply and with less range. The greater the degree of this movement through the scale, the greater the resolution is in its completion. A mind which does not naturally delight in hearing a complex piece in its detailed, vast movement through the logical possibilities of the scale, is just dull and mundane, and cannot notice and experience the sensibility and integrity of the piece. The point is, I don't have to try to like a trio of McLaughlin, Di Meola, and De Lucia. I hear it and I cream myself. It is magic to my ears. On the other hand, the monotonous, droning 4/4 meter of a distorted power-chord melody almost makes me nauseous. It is horribly simple, boring, and pretentious....because the idiots that play that shit actually think they are jamming. I say confidently that the spirit of music died at the moment synthetic instruments were mass produced, and music industry executives began contracting "musicians" to write music which would compliment the capitalist mode of mass production. As Frank Zappa once put it so well: "every fifteen minutes, some new rock group appears utilizing some new promotional device, leaving irreparable scars on the minds of foolish young consumers." The fact is, you like the shit you do because you have been conditioned to like it. It has been beaten into your head, and your head begins to anticipate and expect the same monotonous shit- as Frank put it once more: "the 4/4 is the pedestrian beat. They like that beat. That beat is familiar, predictable, it doesn't frighten them, they can dance to it without tripping over their own feet." So, what happens? The mainstream music industry does not promote music that is unfamiliar and unpopular among the consumer groups who buy it. Conclusion: the next new group needs to be a close as possible to the last group that wrote the music the consumer's bought....or else we run the risk of losing sales." I could go on and on. You have no idea what a fucking disaster the music industry has become in the last three decades. There is no more creativity. There is only repetition and reproduction. Still though, as I said earlier, if your brain simply does not cringe at the sound of that stupid techno shit....I don't know what to tell you. It has to be a physiological thing.


Do you have a problem with silicon-based life? What's wrong with being made of fire and steel and electrons instead of flesh and blood and bone?I dunno man. Recently I have been having nightmares about what I used to believe was a wonderful thing. Communism. I see an army of robots, like the Borg, with no personality, all bouncing their heads to nine-inch-nails or some such crap. The people begin to resemble a machine, like a factory, which runs forever, for no point. You could just pull the plug on the whole thing and you wouldn't notice anything was missing. Shit I dunno man. I think I've seen the future, and it isn't good. I think we need to keep our organic forms and only integrate with machines....maybe get an internet jack put in our heads or something....but not much more than that.


That would be in the spirit of this discourseYou make a sarcastic joke, as if I started this hostility. Listen closely, buddy. I was restricted for being considered a sexist. I presented my defense. Nobody said a fucking word. Nobody could say a fucking word, because I am right. So Jazzmouse chimes in and starts throwing mud at me, with the occasional term from his thesaurus so he can appear intelligent. He is, mind you, especially for his age. But he can't beat me. Not in a million fucking years. So I fight back, and the cronies show up to watch his back. This is admirable. You all might be idiots, but damn if you don't stick together. Now, what is this spirit of discourse and who started it?

Feel free to address my original remarks which were taken to be sexist, by the jury here at Revleft, or bury your head in the sand like the rest of them. But do continue your aspirations to be a physicist. We certainly need more scientists. But lay of the Danzig and Rob Zombie. That shit will make you stupid man. I'm serious....it eats away your receptors and stuff.


While every effort should be made to start a viable society off this planet as soon as possible, the way resources are currently being wasted under class society means that it's highly likely that classless society would be able to both do that and to propel every single human being on Earth into a lifestyle that is more than sufficient and dignified.I can dig it.


I find it hard to trust the psychological evaluations of a self-admitted sociopath.Ad hom! You bastard. You just got done scolding me for one earlier, and what do you do? You discredit me because I am a sociopath. Don't you know there is a fine line between genius and madness? Look, maybe the shrinks were fresh out of school or something, I dunno. 'Course this was like eighteen years ago. All I remember was a couch and a guy with a clip board. Oh, and the ink blot things too. I used to purposely lie and say I saw monsters where I really saw butterflies and happy things. It was great fun. I confused the fuck outta those idiots. The gave me the IQ test when I was thirteen. I slept through half of it, gave the other half half my effort, and scored 127, by accident.

No, I'm not a sociopath......yet. I hate almost everyone.....but I am in control and have not acted on my impulses. I can't, because I can't be sure that God does not exist, or that he would have my ass if I did the horrible things I wanna do. I am haunted by Pascal's wager, and I have to find a way to force God to make a critical mistake...so that I can disregard him and go bash some fucking heads in. Rock on, comrade.

[cappin]

What with me knowing the guy personally, I'd say you are completely wrong on every count.

[Kami]

Anyone up to the challenege of listing all the times kronos just contradicted himself in that last post?

It pains me to give such a short reply, but your post conatins nothing of substance to reply to.

[Kronos]

It pains me to give such a short reply, but your post conatins nothing of substance to reply to.

Believe me, it pains me too, Kami.

[Bud Struggle]

Not to tell you Commies how to live: but if you restrict someone maybe you should PM him/her with the direct charges. At least they would have a clue about what's going on. Right now it's a kind of fact finding mission by the accused that leads to these fights and unpleasentness.

I do as much for the proles that work for me when I feel they do something wrong--and I'm a stinking (tho' fair) Capitalist.

With warmest regards,

TomK

[edit] Some freakin' Nazi gave me a FAIL on my "reputation" for this comment.

[Kronos]

Some freakin' Nazi gave me a FAIL on my "reputation" for this comment.

This is hilarious. We have a restricted capitalist, already hated by the communists, who loses reputation points, a judgment made by a communist enemy, for supporting another enemy, a restricted communist, who hates both the communists who restricted him, and the capitalist who is trying to defend him.

I need a studio. This should be a comedy skit.

(psssst.....Tom, and you wonder why the revolution will never happen? :laugh:)

[Bud Struggle]

(psssst.....Tom, and you wonder why the revolution will never happen? :laugh:)

Kronos, I rely on you Communists daily to support me in my way of life. :thumbup1:

I shudder to think of what would happen to me if you all got together and put together a coherent ACTION plan for the betterment of humanity.

In the end though, I sleep easy. I trust you Communists to be true to yourselves and your cause.

Argue away. :D

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

NoXion, you are correct...the sun will not "explode", but its expansion in the red dwarf stage will produce enough heat to devour the earth, as you mentioned. Forgive me for not using the correct term.....I left my pocket protector and physics dictionary at the house.....but you know what I fucking meant....and you wanted to pick out a detail so you could show us what you learned in class. Well I'm impressed. Call it what you want....the earth is history, eventually.

And once again you get it wrong! It is not the "red dwarf" stage which the Sun will enter into, but the "red giant" stage. A red dwarf is in fact a main sequence star.

There is also some debate as to whether the Earth will be swallowed up/melted away by the Sun. Some astrophysicists suggest that as the Sun enters it's later stages of life, the mass loss due to matter-energy conversion occurring in the stellar core will cause the orbital radius of the planets to increase as the Sun's mass decreases. So it is possible that rather than being toasted, the Earth will move out into a cooler orbit.

I think the terms you should have used are "Until the Earth is swallowed by the Sun".

Like I said, as an aspiring physicist I deplore scientific ignorance and seek to correct it.

Nothing lasts forever, least of all the Earth. That doesn't change the fact that for however long it exists, it exists.


The bolded is "only in theory". If the causes cannot be addressed, they cannot be assumed to exist. If I get Jazzmouse to admit that he likes the spiderman under-roos because he used to collect garden spiders when he was a kid, likes the colors red and blue, and would be tickled pink if he could shoot a web strand out of the palm of his hand, no other causes can be accounted for for his liking the under-roos. If I tell him "but there are also weak causes for your liking them, that we can't really know", he would find that assertion meaningless, as would we. Our desires can be analyzed only with taking into perspective the intentional properties of our choices. Forget about Freud and the sub-conscious....that shit is irrelevant. We would consider only the three reasons he submitted for his liking the spiderman under-roos and work to determine why those reasons are significant and influence his preference. In psychology, the presumption that our subjective tastes, preferences, and desires can be caused by unknown forces is null and useless.Until every aspect of human beings is deliberately engineered, forgive my skepticism. I'll believe it when I see it.


Honestly, I don't like the guy and was trying to insult him. But you are correct about the age thing: it isn't because ninety-nine out of one hundred people who believe in Santa Claus are five years old....that we can safely assume Santa Claus does not exist. Once again I am impressed. You nailed me with an ad hom. Very good.We assume the non-existance of Santa Claus because there is no evidence for his existance, regardless of what anyone under 5 thinks.


About the next three quotes, regarding the bondage: I'm saying that because he enjoys such ridiculous crap, he has a problem. Fantasy and role-playing is not just an arbitrary act.....it has a very deep, psychological significance and is used to compensate, as a simulation, for a lack and failure to exhibit real desires. Fantasy is a "valve" which helps release inhibitions. The existence of these inhibitions is a problem, because it implies that the individual cannot honestly express what they truly desire. Fantasy is "faking the truth."Bondage may be "crap" to you... but he enjoys it. So what? You think it indicates an urge on his part to hurt people (and/or himself), but I see very little evidence for that. I have never murdered anybody in real life, but I suspect my "virtual bodycount" would rival Hitler's.

Again, so what? As long as things remain consensual, just what exactly is your problem? Even if your "safety valve" hypothesis is correct, as long as inhibitions are being released without harming anyone, there shouldn't be anything to worry about.


And you say "ummm....because he likes it dude", as if that is that. Right, no problem. Albert Fish liked eating small children and sticking needles into his groin. No problem.....he liked it dude.Eating small children is considered barbaric by civilised societies... what has such a horrific act got to do with consensual pleasure?


I'm sure it is, and this is so because you are simple minded. The composition of music, its complexity, is formulaic. A well written melody which utilizes a greater spectrum of a scale, for example, is far more elaborate than one which moves simply and with less range. The greater the degree of this movement through the scale, the greater the resolution is in its completion. A mind which does not naturally delight in hearing a complex piece in its detailed, vast movement through the logical possibilities of the scale, is just dull and mundane, and cannot notice and experience the sensibility and integrity of the piece. The point is, I don't have to try to like a trio of McLaughlin, Di Meola, and De Lucia. I hear it and I cream myself. It is magic to my ears.Such music sends me to sleep. It's a little thing called "personal taste". I like a pounding beat, a throbbing bassline, a catchy, uplifting tune and snares that make your ears bleed.

As for being "simple-minded"... the music I listen to is fuel to the fire of my imagination. A "soundtrack" to my thoughts, dreams and fantasies if you will.

If that's "simple-minded", then I'm quite happy to be so.


On the other hand, the monotonous, droning 4/4 meter of a distorted power-chord melody almost makes me nauseous. It is horribly simple, boring, and pretentious....because the idiots that play that shit actually think they are jamming. I say confidently that the spirit of music died at the moment synthetic instruments were mass produced, and music industry executives began contracting "musicians" to write music which would compliment the capitalist mode of mass production.Well, obviously some people like it at least - otherwise such music would never have gotten off the ground. Most of the stuff I listen to has been nowhere near the radio, and yet it is produced with synthetic instruments, 4/4 beat, simple melodies etc.

You may consider me a philistine, but I consider you a toffee-nose with your head up your arse.


As Frank Zappa once put it so well: "every fifteen minutes, some new rock group appears utilizing some new promotional device, leaving irreparable scars on the minds of foolish young consumers." The fact is, you like the shit you do because you have been conditioned to like it. It has been beaten into your head, and your head begins to anticipate and expect the same monotonous shit- as Frank put it once more: "the 4/4 is the pedestrian beat. They like that beat. That beat is familiar, predictable, it doesn't frighten them, they can dance to it without tripping over their own feet." So, what happens? The mainstream music industry does not promote music that is unfamiliar and unpopular among the consumer groups who buy it. Conclusion: the next new group needs to be a close as possible to the last group that wrote the music the consumer's bought....or else we run the risk of losing sales." I could go on and on. You have no idea what a fucking disaster the music industry has become in the last three decades. There is no more creativity. There is only repetition and reproduction.If that's the case, then how is it that I like Infected Mushroom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infected_Mushroom) but if I hear the Red Hot Chilli Peppers come on I leave the room?

Isn't it "all the same shit"?


Still though, as I said earlier, if your brain simply does not cringe at the sound of that stupid techno shit....I don't know what to tell you. It has to be a physiological thing.If you can't tell the difference between Pendulum and Cosmic Gate, then you are probably the sort of person I would never hang out with.


I dunno man. Recently I have been having nightmares about what I used to believe was a wonderful thing. Communism. I see an army of robots, like the Borg, with no personality, all bouncing their heads to nine-inch-nails or some such crap. The people begin to resemble a machine, like a factory, which runs forever, for no point. You could just pull the plug on the whole thing and you wouldn't notice anything was missing. Shit I dunno man. I think I've seen the future, and it isn't good. I think we need to keep our organic forms and only integrate with machines....maybe get an internet jack put in our heads or something....but not much more than that.What's so special about flesh? Everything a meatbag can do, a machine can do better.


You make a sarcastic joke, as if I started this hostility. Listen closely, buddy. I was restricted for being considered a sexist. I presented my defense. Nobody said a fucking word. Nobody could say a fucking word, because I am right. So Jazzmouse chimes in and starts throwing mud at me, with the occasional term from his thesaurus so he can appear intelligent. He is, mind you, especially for his age. But he can't beat me. Not in a million fucking years. So I fight back, and the cronies show up to watch his back. This is admirable. You all might be idiots, but damn if you don't stick together. Now, what is this spirit of discourse and who started it?"BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!"

That's all I heard.


Feel free to address my original remarks which were taken to be sexist, by the jury here at Revleft, or bury your head in the sand like the rest of them. But do continue your aspirations to be a physicist. We certainly need more scientists. But lay of the Danzig and Rob Zombie. That shit will make you stupid man. I'm serious....it eats away your receptors and stuff.Yeah, and Jazz is the "devil's music" :rolleyes:


Ad hom! You bastard. You just got done scolding me for one earlier, and what do you do? You discredit me because I am a sociopath.So you think insane people are perfectly fit to judge their own sanity? Of course a sociopath is not going to consider himself abnormal - they see absolutely nothing wrong with dicking people over for their own ends.

Idiot.


Don't you know there is a fine line between genius and madness? Look, maybe the shrinks were fresh out of school or something, I dunno. 'Course this was like eighteen years ago. All I remember was a couch and a guy with a clip board. Oh, and the ink blot things too. I used to purposely lie and say I saw monsters where I really saw butterflies and happy things. It was great fun. I confused the fuck outta those idiots. The gave me the IQ test when I was thirteen. I slept through half of it, gave the other half half my effort, and scored 127, by accident. So you fucked about with some psychologists... colour me unimpressed.


No, I'm not a sociopath......yet. I hate almost everyone.....but I am in control and have not acted on my impulses. I can't, because I can't be sure that God does not exist, or that he would have my ass if I did the horrible things I wanna do. I am haunted by Pascal's wager, and I have to find a way to force God to make a critical mistake...so that I can disregard him and go bash some fucking heads in. Rock on, comrade.You sound like a stereotypical teenager. I hope for your sake that you are in fact in your teens, as it means that you're most likely merely ignorant... which can be cured, unless you're a stupid adult, which is more unfortunate.

[Kronos]

And once again you get it wrong!Jesus Christ, you're right again. I can't win for losing. You know I studied my physics like eight years ago and knew all that shit at one time. I guess most of it wasn't useful to me so I forgot it. Still, I have failed again, comrade. Kill me swiftly.


That doesn't change the fact that for however long it exists, it exists.You're kidding.


just what exactly is your problem?The youth today.


It's a little thing called "personal taste".Mark my words....when you get to be my age, you will listen to shit the kids your age, now, listen to, and you will hate it. There is a pattern to this. Each generation of art gets progressively worse, while the capacity for developing interests in art more or less stay the same. What is happening is, under the control of the capitalist system, art is being cheapened, so tastes become cheapened in return. If I put you in Skinner's box when you turned five, forced you to listen to Mahavishnu Orchestra for ten years, and then let you out....you would be conditioned to love it, and you would abhor the shit you like right now. Point being, aesthetic tastes are conditioned, and conditioning within the capitalist/consumerist discourse is a calamity.

Never mind all that. I can't argue that my tastes are better than yours. I can only explain to you how tastes are developed, and point toward the dark horizon that lies ahead of us.


If that's the case, then how is it that I like Infected Mushroom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infected_Mushroom) but if I hear the Red Hot Chilli Peppers come on I leave the room?
I have no idea.....but I once ate a mushroom (fly agaric) and became infected with something. My fucking neck swelled up like a balloon.


If you can't tell the difference between Pendulum and Cosmic Gate, then you are probably the sort of person I would never hang out with.No, I wouldn't know the difference, and no, we would never hang out.


What's so special about flesh? Everything a meatbag can do, a machine can do better.
A machine can't regenerate parts and "heal" itself if it is damaged, and they need oil changes.


"BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!"

That's all I heard.
Yeah we'll I ain't no sexist. Only, I consider 75% of consumer women to be spiritually and intellectually bankrupt. If I were king, I would keep them all locked in a cage and use them only for sex. Now communist women I can dig. They got some fucking sense and dignity.


You sound like a stereotypical teenager.I'm toying with you, young man. When I want something useful out of you, I'll ask an astronomical question. Now, what is the deal with this tenth planet scientists recently found?

[Kronos]

Oh, oh....you should check out one of the videos I made, NoXion. It is all about how awesome modern music is. Here's listening to you, kid.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlgn6OA04R0

[Kronos]

Holy shit! I got you again, NoXion. I just noticed it. Check it out.


I hope for your sake that you are in fact in your teens, as it means that you're most likely merely ignorant...Right, so when I commit the ad hom and call Jazz mouse ignorant because of his age, you scold me and immediately afterward, you commit an ad hom against me and say that because I am a sociopath, I can't be correct about what I say. And now you do it again with that statement, in the exact same context as my ad hom against mouseboy, by referring to age.

Alright, let's tally up the bill. I was wrong twice about the sun deal, but only by a minor detail. YOU were wrong twice, and hypocritical because you accused me of the same thing you ended up doing yourself.

This is very disappointing, NoXion. What kind of a role model are you for the next generation of revolutionaries? The hypocrite communist physicist who listens to Marlyn Manson and thinks it's okay for his buddies to flog their girlfriends with a rubber chicken while she dangles in a harness hanging from the ceiling.

Godless heathens. All of you.

[apathy maybe]

Godless heathens. All of you.
And proud:cool:

[Kami]

Right, so when I commit the ad hom and call Jazz mouse ignorant because of his age, you scold me and immediately afterward, you commit an ad hom against me and say that because I am a sociopath, I can't be correct about what I say. And now you do it again with that statement, in the exact same context as my ad hom against mouseboy, by referring to age.

You misunderstand the concept of an ad hom; sometimes, it is a valid objection. For example, someone who is well known for being dishonest should perhaps have their words taken with a pinch of salt. Age is not one of these cases, sociopathy arguably is.

This is very disappointing, NoXion. What kind of a role model are you for the next generation of revolutionaries? The hypocrite communist physicist who listens to Marlyn Manson and thinks it's okay for his buddies to flog their girlfriends with a rubber chicken while she dangles in a harness hanging from the ceiling.
His taste in music is none of your business, What's the problem with girlfriend-flogging anyway? If it goes on between two consenting adults, it is AGAIN none of your business.


Godless heathens. All of you.
Apathy Maybe beat me to it, but yes, yes we are, and damn proud of it.

[Kronos]

You misunderstand the concept of an ad hom; sometimes, it is a valid objection. For example, someone who is well known for being dishonest should perhaps have their words taken with a pinch of salt. Age is not one of these cases, sociopathy arguably is.

Hasty generalization by a consensus gentium of a red herring through an induction fallacy!

Good gracious!

Just because one has been dishonest 99 times does not mean they will be dishonest again. And by discrediting the argument of a sociopath, you are supposing that just because 100 doctors thinks he is crazy, he must be crazy and therefore incorrect.

And no, I don't misunderstand the ad hom, and yes, it is always a valid objection. The ad hom is commited when a quality of the arguer, rather than the argument, persuades disbelief in the argument.


but yes, yes we are, and damn proud of it.

Well at least you got that much right.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Just because one has been dishonest 99 times does not mean they will be dishonest again.True, but the probability that the next statement will be dishonest is unacceptably high.

So we don't take the chance.


And by discrediting the argument of a sociopath, you are supposing that just because 100 doctors thinks he is crazy, he must be crazy and therefore incorrect.Yes, the idea that 100 trained mental health practicioners should have a better idea of an insane person's insanity than the insane person herself, insane people not being well-renowned for the correct grip of reality and society, is an acceptable one on it's face. What is your objection?


And no, I don't misunderstand the ad hom, and yes, it is always a valid objection. The ad hom is commited when a quality of the arguer, rather than the argument, persuades disbelief in the argument.The opinion of a known liar is held lower than the opinion of someone with a reputation for honesty for a good reason - a liar is more likely to tell you an untrue statement at the very least, and is therefore less reliable.

[Sky]

The CC runs this board for the owner, Malte. The CC is accountable to no one but Malte. .
You knock down strawmen to your own satisfaction. I never made an argument to the contrary.


We don't have to prove anything. We think that your positions on homosexuality and transgendered people constitute reactionary positions.
Again, if you are going to make such allegations against me regarding my alleged positions on homosexuality and transgendered people then there is such a thing as burden of proof to support such allegations. I can just as easily accuse you and the majority of CC members of being closet white supremacists.

Furthermore, I was not restricted to this section because of the positions you ascribe to me. Rather, the justification was that I'm an "Islamist apologist" which I have demonstrated not to be true. It is dishonest to cite my alleged position on homosexuality when that was not the reason for my restriction.

Even if your allegations concerning my positions are to be accepted as true, in no way does that render me part of an opposing ideology. Marxism is not defined by one's position on sex assignment surgery and homosexuality.

[Dros]

You knock down strawmen to your own satisfaction. I never made an argument to the contrary.

Your argument rests on the notion that you have some kind of recourse. You don't as proved by my statement here.


Again, if you are going to make such allegations against me regarding my alleged positions on homosexuality and transgendered people then there is such a thing as burden of proof to support such allegations.

That's exactly wrong. There is NO burden of proof. We can restrict you for WHATEVER REASON WE WANT or for none at all. However, this is why you are being restricted. And this is why you will remain restricted. There is no room for discussion. This is not an argument. This is me telling you why you are restricted.


I can just as easily accuse you the majority of CC members of being closet white supremacists.

Good for you. I'm telling you that the CC runs this board and that they don't care what you say about them.


Furthermore, I was not restricted to this section because of the positions you ascribe to me. Rather, the justification was that I'm an "Islamist apologist" which I have demonstrated not to be true. It is dishonest to cite my alleged position on homosexuality when that was not the reason for my restriction.

You are clearly missing something. I've already told you that there are no rules outlining what the CC may or may not do. We can absolutely restrict you for one thing and then keep you restricted for another. In fact, we are. Be thankful you haven't been banned.

Again, there is no "technicality" that is going to get you unrestricted. This is not a court. It's a committee. You were not being found "guilty" of a "charge". You are being restricted because you are of an opposing ideology.


Even if your allegations concerning my positions are to be accepted as true, in no way does that render me part of an opposing ideology. Marxism is not defined by one's position on sex assignment surgery and homosexuality.

Your positions are anti-worker.

[Bud Struggle]

Your argument rests on the notion that you have some kind of recourse. You don't as proved by my statement here.
That's exactly wrong. There is NO burden of proof. We can restrict you for WHATEVER REASON WE WANT or for none at all. However, this is why you are being restricted. And this is why you will remain restricted. There is no room for discussion. This is not an argument. I'm telling you that the CC runs this board and that they don't care what you say about them.

I've already told you that there are no rules outlining what the CC may or may not do. We can absolutely restrict you for one thing and then keep you restricted for another. In fact, we are. Be thankful you haven't been banned.

Again, there is no "technicality" that is going to get you unrestricted. This is not a court. It's a committee. You were not being found "guilty" of a "charge".


Sky, drosera99 is entirely correct. This is what Communist governance is in its essence. This is the way Communist societies are run. If you want to be a Communist I suggest you get used to this kind of life. If you want personal freedom and fair courts and trials by jury, etc. join the Republican Party.

If you want to be a Communist I suggest you buck up and be a Communist through thick and thin and not just when it's convenient. The Commie Club is teaching you a good lesson. Learn well.

[freakazoid]

Sky, drosera99 is entirely correct. This is what Communist governance is in its essence.

No, that sort of behavior is anti-communist/anarchist, and should be fought.

[Kronos]

True, but the probability that the next statement will be dishonest is unacceptably high.

So we don't take the chance.


I agree, I wouldn't take the chance either. But the fallacy is still there regardless.


Yes, the idea that 100 trained mental health practicioners should have a better idea of an insane person's insanity than the insane person herself, insane people not being well-renowned for the correct grip of reality and society, is an acceptable one on it's face. What is your objection?

That a fallacy is committed, that's all. Four million people thought Hitler was right, but that doesn't make him right.


The opinion of a known liar is held lower than the opinion of someone with a reputation for honesty for a good reason - a liar is more likely to tell you an untrue statement at the very least, and is therefore less reliable.

That's irrelevant. The fallacy is still there. But your reasoning is correct.

There are fallacies everywhere, cuz. You wouldn't believe how many there are. A man can hardly open his mouth before committing a fallacy.

Our lesson for today, class, is that rather than trying to avoid logical fallacies, which is almost impossible, do them better than your opponent. Strengthen your rhetorical skills and you will become a better revolutionary propagandist.


If you want personal freedom and fair courts and trials by jury, etc. join the Republican Party.

Ha! That's a joke. The last people I would want making a judgment about me is a jury randomly selected from middle class consumerist america. Most adults in this country couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions on the heel, let alone make a rational, educated decision regarding law. Communists as a rule are one hundred times smarter and more disciplined than anyone else.

[Dros]

No, that sort of behavior is anti-communist/anarchist, and should be fought.


Sky, drosera99 is entirely correct. This is what Communist governance is in its essence. This is the way Communist societies are run. If you want to be a Communist I suggest you get used to this kind of life. If you want personal freedom and fair courts and trials by jury, etc. join the Republican Party.

If you want to be a Communist I suggest you buck up and be a Communist through thick and thin and not just when it's convenient. The Commie Club is teaching you a good lesson. Learn well.

For FUCK's SAKE!!!

This is a MESSAGE BOARD. It is NOT A COUNTRY. The CC is NOT A GOVERNMENT AND IT DOES NOT PRETEND TO REFLECT COMMUNIST/ANARCHIST IDEALS OF GOVERNMENT. It is simply the most EFFECTIVE WAY OF ADMINISTERING AN ONLINE FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!

Really people. Get a life.

[freakazoid]

For FUCK's SAKE!!!

This is a MESSAGE BOARD. It is NOT A COUNTRY. The CC is NOT A GOVERNMENT AND IT DOES NOT PRETEND TO REFLECT COMMUNIST/ANARCHIST IDEALS OF GOVERNMENT. It is simply the most EFFECTIVE WAY OF ADMINISTERING AN ONLINE FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps if we tried to do it correctly here then we could do it correctly in real life. From some of the behavior I have seen here it appears to me that most of it will transfer into the real world once we have our revolution. How exactly is restricting someone without asking them to show what they really meant by a statement and then not even telling them that they are going to be restricted the best way to administer an online forum? Also if it does not pretend to reflect communist/anarchist ideals of government then why restrict people for "reactionary" ideas?


Really people. Get a life.

Whats that supposed to mean?

[Jazzratt]

Perhaps if we tried to do it correctly here then we could do it correctly in real life. From some of the behavior I have seen here it appears to me that most of it will transfer into the real world once we have our revolution.

We are operating under a completely different fucking paradigm to a government, you've simply convinced yourself of a massive injustice and take any decision made by us as some form of oppression. It isn't, the closest equivalent in actual society would be us telling you to fuck off and then ignoring you (rather than taking any governmental action).


Whats that supposed to mean?

He means go to the fucking pub or have a joint or something, just don't spend the entirety of your time whining because we disagree with you.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Also if it does not pretend to reflect communist/anarchist ideals of government then why restrict people for "reactionary" ideas

if this did not happen the entire forum would become one huge OI with eventually the reactionaries numbers rivaling or exceeding those of the communists.

Since this is meant to be a message bored for the revolutionary left i am sure I and others would like to see it kept that way. If i want to argue with right wingers i go to OI or another forum.

[freakazoid]

We are operating under a completely different fucking paradigm to a government, you've simply convinced yourself of a massive injustice and take any decision made by us as some form of oppression. It isn't, the closest equivalent in actual society would be us telling you to fuck off and then ignoring you (rather than taking any governmental action).Yeah, but what about my point?


He means go to the fucking pub or have a joint or something, just don't spend the entirety of your time whining because we disagree with you.When was the last time I have even talked about my restriction, or the way things are run? I don't like "pubs" or there equivalent, I'm kind of an introvert. And I don't smoke, not that I think it is wrong or anything I just don't do it.


if this did not happen the entire forum would become one huge OI with eventually the reactionaries numbers rivaling or exceeding those of the communists.

Since this is meant to be a message bored for the revolutionary left i am sure I and others would like to see it kept that way. If i want to argue with right wingers i go to OI or another forum.Not everyone in the OI is actually a reactionary, there are some here who are actually communists, anarchists. That and so what if the "reactionaries" rivaled the amount of actual leftists? Not that that would even happen. But deal with someone only AFTER they start trolling, flaming, or just become a huge nuisance. Not because they have a controversial view on something. Or supposed controversial view, :mad:

[Kronos]

Don't worry about those chumps, Freaky. Talk to me. You and me, we make a team. I owe you one anyway.

Now what did you do that landed you in here?

[freakazoid]

I am supposedly anti-choice because of some off handed comment I made a long time ago. Even though I really believe that the .gov has no right to regulate it, or to exist for that matter.

[Lector Malibu]

Oh this is rich. The OI'ers bonding under the oppressive confines of the restricted part of the forum.

I have never seen this before.

[Kronos]

I am supposedly anti-choice because of some off handed comment I made a long time ago.What, about abortion? Oh that's easy man. The abortion argument is as old as the fucking hills, and these idiots are still mulling over it?

When a communist deals with this question, it's a little tricky. If the communist says that the mother should have a right to abort or not abort a child, the communist is implying that it is okay, in some instances, for a child to be born into very unfortunate circumstances. For example, a fifteen year old prostitute crack head thief HIV patient is not going to be able to provide for her child appropriately. So, unless the state gets involved to help manage the child's needs, the child is likely to be doomed. Therefore, in allowing the mother to keep the child, the communist is implying that the state should have some say so as to the child's treatment and welfare.

Now, let's thicken the plot. At what point is it not okay for the state to make an authoritative decision concerning the child's treatment? If there is no point where this is so.....then essentially the same authority is active here that would be active had the state not allowed the mother to bare the child.

The question for the communist is not "is the child a person or not", because the communist, as a scientist, will deduce that the fetus is not an independent life form. So for the communist it isn't a matter of "murder", like it is with the religious nuts. For the communist the deciding point is about "freedom to choose". And yet, that same freedom, of the mother to choose to bare the child, is forfeit the moment the mother has no decision in the welfare of the child as a result of the ordering of the state.

What is the difference between the state making an executive decision regarding the birth of a child, and the treatment of a child? In a case where a child is taken out of custody of the mother, and mother not allowed to see the child, what is the difference between this...and not letting the child be born to begin with?

There is no difference. We got em, Freaky.

Now my position is this: I am pro choice, but I am also pro total authoritarian state, such that the state has absolute say so concerning the treatment of the child. I also believe that the state should attempt to persuade a mother to have an abortion is the state believes that the circumstances are unfortunate enough to warrant a termination of the fetus.

The consequence of the state not intervening in the decision to abort a fetus is an inadvertent oxymoron in the case that the state is required to care for the child with the absence of the mother.

We have concluded that in any case, pro choice or not, the communist/socialist state produces a contradiction in its reasoning.

If a mother in the worst of all possible cases wants to have a child, and she can, then the state needs to keep its fucking hands off of that child. But it can't, for the child's sake.

What a beautiful paradox. Damn we got em good, Freaky.


The OI'ers bonding under the oppressive confines of the restricted part of the forum.We're cell mates, man. What the fuck else are we gonna do? Play checkers?

[Kronos]

And what is the stipulation that seizes all sentimentality in this painstaking task to decide if it is so bad to be forced to abort your fetus? Has anyone yet asked why it is so important be able to have a child, why a mother cries tears of joy for this wonderful blessing, this beautiful child, this life that she has created?

Because it is hers, that is why.

Is this a private affair? Must a woman have her own child to share and experience the same feeling of joy for the beauty of giving birth? I don't think so.

To privatize this concept, in addition to the idea of the "private family", is to misunderstand and misappropriate the universal notion itself- that of procreation. Those very same sentiments can be felt about giving birth in general, by anyone, so that an individual feels no alienation if they themselves do not have their "own" child.

Why can a child be "only her" child, and not a sibling to all children, a son or daughter to all people? And why cannot all people, with children or not, participate in raising children, as if we all were one extended family?

We must rid ourselves of the myth that personal reproduction is important, that spreading our own genes is important, that we must have our own "names", heritage, lineage, etc. These are all privatized concepts and have significance only where there is an exclusive family.

That mother, who was convinced to abort her fetus, should find solace in the fact that she still has the opportunity to play an important role in all human relations, to all people, of all ages.

If this is possible, perhaps one day the human family will not only understand the critical importance of reproduction, but will also embrace the idea that the best among them have children, everybody's children, that everyone shares responsibility in raising, educating and loving them.

No, I do not speak of a world where some master class stand above all others and controls the reproduction of the species. I speak of a world where there is one class that agrees that this is how it should be done.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Not everyone in the OI is actually a reactionary, there are some here who are actually communists, anarchists.

yeah thats your opnion and sometimes is see posts by some people and I think WTF are they doing here. But its up to the CC who they deem as reactionary and thats a better way of dong things then haveing some bloke who owns the site put everyone he dosent like in here


That and so what if the "reactionaries" rivaled the amount of actual leftists? Not that that would even happen. But deal with someone only AFTER they start trolling, flaming, or just become a huge nuisance. Not because they have a controversial view on something. Or supposed controversial view, :mad:

No its because this is a leftist bored i want to be around other leftists and talk about matter concerning the far left with other members of the far left. When I feel like arguing with right wingers i go to another forum.

The Restrictions stop the bored becoming like most other politics forums apart from some communist imagery.

[Bud Struggle]

No its because this is a leftist bored i want to be around other leftists and talk about matter concerning the far left with other members of the far left. When I feel like arguing with right wingers i go to another forum.

The Restrictions stop the bored becoming like most other politics forums apart from some communist imagery.

Yup, the good Comrad is right. Me and Pusher and RTG and Dejavu, Phlanx, etc., don't really belong or really want to belong on the Mainboards. You have you Commie stuff to talk about with each other, you are kind enough to let us read what you say and some stuff (Rosa Litchenstein for example,) is really pretty interesting (she's really reinventing Communism for the 21st Century if you'd care to notice,) and cutting edge, a lot is the usual, but it's YOUR business.

We don't belong there in the main board. But you guys really need to find a home for your NEO-Communists, the ones that are 99% comrades. They really don't belong here with us, tho' we enjoy their contributions here in OI. Actually, they really give a real tempo to the OI. Anyway you should think about the place of your "fellow travellers" on this board. It's not with us OIers.

They really do suffer being ousted by your guys. As Marx once said: being exclusionary is definitely counter-Revolutionary. :D

[Killfacer]

TomK is right, i have to admit i thought i was gonna agree with everyone of this board and not get restricted but having been on this board for a while it is clear that i belong on the OI section. Some people however clearly dont, iv seen a couple of posters who are clearly proper young communists who put one foot wrong and blammo thats it. TomK is right, you do damage to your cause by doing this.

[RedFlagComrade]

Whats to stop me registering again under a different name and e-mail address?

[apathy maybe]

The fact that we'll find out and ban the sock puppet? We do have such tools you know.

[Red October]

It's pretty clear that no one on the Forum has the OIers true interest at heart more than me.

It is time that I am elected the Glorious Leader of the OI.

No bowing to me yet, we are all equals. (FOR THE MOMENT.) ;)

Haha, maybe TomK should co-mod OI. I think it's been suggested before that OIers should be able to mod OI.

[RedFlagComrade]

The fact that we'll find out and ban the sock puppet? We do have such tools you know.

Like the NSA? Cool. How would you find me?

PS TomK gets my vote too.

[RedAnarchist]

Like the NSA? Cool. How would you find me?

They would check the IP address, obviously.

[RedFlagComrade]

IP address-thats the id code for the computer or sth.-right?

[freakazoid]

No, the ID for the computer would be the MAC address, :)

[Kami]

as freakazoid said, that'd be the MAC. The IP is more a number leased out for the purposes of sending/recieving data. Perhaps someone can put that a little better? -.-

[freakazoid]

To put it simply you could say that the IP address is the ID for the computer but technically it isn't. The IP address actually IDs the network, it would be in router. The IP is level 3 on the OSI model, and the router is a level 3 device. IP addresses are used to send the packets from router to router. To put it kind of brief, :)

[RedFlagComrade]

So in an entirely hypothetical situation if a certain somebody was to go to a local library, register again on a public computer there and then go home and continue use as normal would he/she be restricted again...?(sorry that you have to spell it out for me Im not that smart with computers)

PS Jazzrat-have you ever unrestricted anybody if their argument for unrestriction was solid enough or is this thread just bullshit to keep the proles happy?

[RedAnarchist]

So in an entirely hypothetical situation if a certain somebody was to go to a local library, register again on a public computer there and then go home and continue use as normal would he/she be restricted again...?(sorry that you have to spell it out for me Im not that smart with computers)

PS Jazzrat-have you ever unrestricted anybody if their argument for unrestriction was solid enough or is this thread just bullshit to keep the proles happy?

If it was a public IP, then it probably wouldn't get unrestricted, but there are other ways of identifying someone, such as writing styles etc.

[Jazzratt]

PS Jazzrat-have you ever unrestricted anybody if their argument for unrestriction was solid enough or is this thread just bullshit to keep the proles happy?

I can't recall, I believe we have unrestricted people who petitioned for it in the previous thread, though.

[RedFlagComrade]

If it was a public IP, then it probably wouldn't get unrestricted, but there are other ways of identifying someone, such as writing styles etc.

Well so long as you dont make the mistake of discussing abortion again...

And there'd always be the tiny chance that the poster you'd just restricted was an innocent young activist whod been mistaken for an OIer, and restricting them for doing nothing would do little to further the cause of communism...

[Jazzratt]

Well so long as you dont make the mistake of discussing abortion again...

And there'd always be the tiny chance that the poster you'd just restricted was an innocent young activist whod been mistaken for an OIer, and restricting them for doing nothing would do little to further the cause of communism...

Generally as long as someone doesn't post an unbelievable "I changed my mind lolz" thing or an overly trollish "unrestrict me you fucks" we'll probably believe them - so if this "innocent young activist" doesn't behave like a dick they'll be let out.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So in an entirely hypothetical situation if a certain somebody was to go to a local library, register again on a public computer there and then go home and continue use as normal would he/she be restricted again...?(sorry that you have to spell it out for me Im not that smart with computers)

PS Jazzrat-have you ever unrestricted anybody if their argument for unrestriction was solid enough or is this thread just bullshit to keep the proles happy?

I used to be restricted.

I know of a couple others who have been unrestricted, as well. So I suppose it is possible.

[RedFlagComrade]

Ah but what if a real Oier was discovered and restricted and then he was unrestricted because he was believed to be such an innocent young activist?

A bit of a catch-22, innit?

[RedFlagComrade]

I used to be restricted.

I know of a couple others who have been unrestricted, as well. So I suppose it is possible.

Why were you restricted?-what did you do to get unrestricted?

[Jazzratt]

Ah but what if a real Oier was discovered and restricted and then he was unrestricted because he was believed to be such an innocent young activist?

A bit of a catch-22, innit?

Then they're unrestricted and considered young activists, unfortunately this is the internet and some people will lie. But take it from me pretending to hold certain opinions that you don't actually hold can get boring.

[RedFlagComrade]

all i have to do is not mention abortion-i dont have to lie about my beliefs cause other than that they're the same as yours.

[Bud Struggle]

I remember Dean was unrestricted in the last month or so.

[freakazoid]

Yeah, people do get unrestricted.

Unrestrict me you fucks!!



:D love you, lol

[Jazzratt]

all i have to do is not mention abortion-i dont have to lie about my beliefs cause other than that they're the same as yours.

Well you do have to demonstrate a change of belief on abortion, one that is less likely to believed given that you've basically stated outright that you would lie about it.

[Dean]

I remember Dean was unrestricted in the last month or so.

Yeah, but I think the main issue was over confusion about my beliefs because I am very straight-forward. When it came to discussing biolgoical traits of men vs. women and abortion, I was not afraid of apearing any certain way, I simpyl said what was on my mind. Some things, people like to have the stance and nothing more.

I think a lot of the restrictions here are overzealous. I agree with the restriction of graffic and Phalanx, but not of TomK of freakazoid. Neither of you are disruptive, and I know freakazoid is a genuine leftist. I am cool with Pusher Robot but I understand his restriction as well. Still, I don't think all but a few of the OIers would be really disruptive outside of this board.


I do call for a reconsideration of freakazoids restriction. I don't recall exactly what the issue was, but I don't ever remember being conviced that he wasn't a leftist.

[freakazoid]

It was because of an off hand comment I had made that made it look like I was anti-choice, which isn't true! :( I believe that a woman should be able to choose whether or not she has an abortion, the .gov should have no say in it, shoot the .gov shouldn't even exist.

[Dean]

It was because of an off hand comment I had made that made it look like I was anti-choice, which isn't true! :( I believe that a woman should be able to choose whether or not she has an abortion, the .gov should have no say in it, shoot the .gov shouldn't even exist.

I think that, if you really do believe that a woman shoudl have the right to make all decisions on abortion, regardless of the degree of the pregnancy, then there is no reason you should be restricted (and this is my understanding considering the precedents set by the CC, not just my opinion). And you haven't been spamming the forum from what I can see. So, Jazzrat, you mind making a post in the CC on freakazoid's behalf?

[Awful Reality]

Obviously I recognize that I am rightfully restricted: my comments were immature, ridiculous, and wholly inflammatory, as well as being offensive and un-called for.


I was, however, wondering what the criteria is for un-restriction.

[Jazzratt]

I was, however, wondering what the criteria is for un-restriction.

Consistent, mature posting in the OI forum helps, generally (see agora77, Dean and so on).

[apathy maybe]

Obviously I recognize that I am rightfully restricted: my comments were immature, ridiculous, and wholly inflammatory, as well as being offensive and un-called for.


I was, however, wondering what the criteria is for un-restriction.
Maturity, as mentioned by Jazzratt, is a big thing.

Normally if a person is restricted for having certain views (rather then posting styles), to be unrestricted requires demonstration that the person no longer holds those views.

This is comes through a process of debate and is more likely to be believed if it doesn't happen like, "I don't believe anything I said before, let me out now!". Indeed, the best thing to do is to post something like, "I don't believe anything I said before, and here is why 1, 2, 3".

------

So RedFlagComrade, if you want your current account to be unrestricted, look over the various abortion threads, read the arguments and take them in.

Then post something like, "I was wrong about abortion, in the first few months the ability of the foetus to feel pain is negligible and thus irrelevant. After that, the self-defence argument becomes most relevant. Here is why ..."

[apathy maybe]

It was because of an off hand comment I had made that made it look like I was anti-choice, which isn't true! :( I believe that a woman should be able to choose whether or not she has an abortion, the .gov should have no say in it, shoot the .gov shouldn't even exist.

What is your definition of murder?

Do you think that abortion can be considered murder?

What is your definition of self-defence?

Can murder and self-defence intersect?

[TC]

So RedFlagComrade, if you want your current account to be unrestricted, look over the various abortion threads, read the arguments and take them in.

Then post something like, "I was wrong about abortion, in the first few months the ability of the foetus to feel pain is negligible and thus irrelevant. After that, the self-defence argument becomes most relevant. Here is why ..."


Actually no. Don't lie about your views for the sake of getting more access to spread them in more subtle ways. Buck it up and stay restricted instead of trying to fool enough people towing the minimum non-reactionary line just so you can post shit in other forum sections.

Better yet quit and find a general political forum instead of a revolutionary leftist one.

But for gods sake don't compromise your politics, morals, and ethics for something as trivial as a message board, you can be sure the people on the other side of the issue wont.

[apathy maybe]

Err, the "read the arguments and take them in" bit meant that he should be convinced by the arguments. Not that he should lie about his convictions.

Hopefully this post makes it clear that I'm not advocating what TragicClown thought I was advocating.

[Bud Struggle]

DAMN! And I was just going to convert. :(

[freakazoid]

What is your definition of murder?

Killing somebody when there was no right to.


Do you think that abortion can be considered murder?

Here is what I had messaged TC a little bit ago when she had asked me that because of what I had said that one time that got me restricted.
"No. When I had said that I didn't put much thought into what I was saying to make sure that I was clear on what I meant, it was in response to a question in a thread that had nothing to do with abortion so I just put down an answer. And now I do not view it as "murder". I know that when I first signed onto this forum that I would of believed that abortion is murder. But now I no longer do, I don't know when I came to this conclusion but I no longer believe it is murder. But even when I thought it was murder I never believed it should be made illegal, because I was trying to reconcile my anarchist beliefs with my view on abortion. But now it isn't even a problem because like I said, I do not even believe it to be murder anymore."


What is your definition of self-defence?

To defend yourself.


Can murder and self-defence intersect?

It's not murder if it is self-defense.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Better yet quit and find a general political forum instead of a revolutionary leftist one.
Are you actively trying to chase away people who share more in common with us than the vast majority of the population just because they aren't fully revolutionary yet? For God's sake, why? The revolutionary left is a tiny minority as it is, we need all the help and all the people we can get!

I really don't understand you sometimes... Why chase anyone away? We must not chase away anyone who comes here willing to listen to what we have to say.

And frankly, anyone willing to lie just to be able to post freely is clearly a person interested in revolutionary leftism; exactly the kind of person we need to talk to.

[RedFlagComrade]

Actually no. Don't lie about your views for the sake of getting more access to spread them in more subtle ways. Buck it up and stay restricted instead of trying to fool enough people towing the minimum non-reactionary line just so you can post shit in other forum sections.

Better yet quit and find a general political forum instead of a revolutionary leftist one.

But for gods sake don't compromise your politics, morals, and ethics for something as trivial as a message board, you can be sure the people on the other side of the issue wont.

Obviously Im not going to lie about my beliefs. But I am a revolutionary leftist-which should be the main criteria on this site-and I dont feel any other forums would be as suitable for me.

P.S Jazzratt u misread my posts. I asked would it be possible to trace a restricted poster who registered again with a new name and email on a public computer, than went home and proceeded to use revleft as normal under this new alibi?

[Kami]

would it be possible to trace a restricted poster who registered again with a new name and email on a public computer, than went home and proceeded to use revleft as normal under this new alibi?
I.P Address, on most forums, is tracked each logon, not just at register

[apathy maybe]

P.S Jazzratt u misread my posts. I asked would it be possible to trace a restricted poster who registered again with a new name and email on a public computer, than went home and proceeded to use revleft as normal under this new alibi?
Look, we have access to secret NSA stuff that enables us to not only know where you live, but track you even when you aren't near a computer. We are watching your every move.

[freakazoid]

Look, we have access to secret NSA stuff that enables us to not only know where you live, but track you even when you aren't near a computer. We are watching your every move.

:scared: lol Actually there is a way to get a rough idea on where someone is located by there IP address.

[careyprice31]

Obviously Im not going to lie about my beliefs. But I am a revolutionary leftist-which should be the main criteria on this site-and I dont feel any other forums would be as suitable for me.

P.S Jazzratt u misread my posts. I asked would it be possible to trace a restricted poster who registered again with a new name and email on a public computer, than went home and proceeded to use revleft as normal under this new alibi?

I spent two years as member of a forum where the admins were pros at catching people who try to ban dodge or restrict dodge or sign up under a different name. To this day I dont know how they did it. They were some smart.

so yes they can catch you.

[pusher robot]

Look, we have access to secret NSA stuff that enables us to not only know where you live, but track you even when you aren't near a computer. We are watching your every move.

Hmmm...pervasive surveillance...altruistic philosophy...judgmental...love the color red...could it be? Are you...SANTA CLAUS?

[apathy maybe]

Hmmm...pervasive surveillance...altruistic philosophy...judgmental...love the color red...could it be? Are you...SANTA CLAUS?

lol

But didn't you know? Santa Claus is Evil (http://mentalanarchy.com/ma/ch1.html).

[Bud Struggle]

lol

But didn't you know? Santa Claus is Evil (http://mentalanarchy.com/ma/ch1.html).

Whew! That's quite a joyless little site isn't it? :(

[RedFlagComrade]

Me, freakazoid, dean, have you ever wondered at the unusually large proportion of truly communistic people who have been restricted for something as apparantly irrelevant to the revolution as their opinion (true or not) on abortion. Maybe you're supposedly clear and justified pro-choice policy is misplaced. On the thread that got me restricted I posted a poll and a fractional yet still significat number of those who voted claimed to be pro-life (this was even before the thread got moved to the OI) despite the accepted knowledge that all leftists are unfailingly pro-choice, therefore not all of those on this site support this fascist cencorship policy. Also every time a thread on abortion, or even a passing mention within a thread, is posted a heated and often angry and violent disscussion inevitably emerges, always running several pages long-which is hard to explain considering all parties involved are supposed have the same pro-choice opinions, being as they are apparantly truer and better communists than me. I hope that no left-communists or anarchists in the CC voted for my restriction on a moot point of opinion-and if they did there's an irony there that shouldn't be hard to spot.

[Dros]

Me, freakazoid, dean, have you ever wondered at the unusually large proportion of truly communistic people who have been restricted for something as apparantly irrelevant to the revolution as their opinion (true or not) on abortion.

No true communists have been restricted on this site because of abortions. This is because we only restrict people for being anti-choice. Thus, no communists get restricted.

And secondly, if you for some reason have the audacity to believe that an issue like reproductive autonomy for women is insignificant, then you are most certainly not a Communist or even a leftist. If you believe women shouldn't have a basic human right, then I want no part of your men's only revolution.


Maybe you're supposedly clear and justified pro-choice policy is misplaced.

No.


On the thread that got me restricted I posted a poll and a fractional yet still significat number of those who voted claimed to be pro-life (this was even before the thread got moved to the OI) despite the accepted knowledge that all leftists are unfailingly pro-choice,

Some people troll or press the wrong one on purpose. Some people are just mysoginists.


therefore not all of those on this site support this fascist cencorship policy.

:lol::lol::lol:

No shit. There are quite a few who disapprove of that policy. Fortunately for the leftists, they are in the minority in the CC.


Also every time a thread on abortion, or even a passing mention within a thread, is posted a heated and often angry and violent disscussion inevitably emerges, always running several pages long-which is hard to explain considering all parties involved are supposed have the same pro-choice opinions, being as they are apparantly truer and better communists than me.

Obviously, they don't have the same opinions but they are all pro-choice. These arguments are usually between economists/pragmatists and Communists over what the correct line on abortion is regarding politics. That is, should we work with anti-choice organizations or individuals? Is abortion something we should struggle with the masses over?


I hope that no left-communists or anarchists in the CC voted for my restriction on a moot point of opinion.

They did. And it isn't moot.

This whole "it's just my opinion" bullshit doesn't fly here. I already explained that to you.

[freakazoid]

This is because we only restrict people for being anti-choice. Thus, no communists get restricted.

And secondly, if you for some reason have the audacity to believe that an issue like reproductive autonomy for women is insignificant, then you are most certainly not a Communist or even a leftist. If you believe women shouldn't have a basic human right, then I want no part of your men's only revolution.

Pretty sure there are a lot of communists who believe in "pro-life", seeing as how being a communists basically deals with emancipating the proletariat from capitalism. While womans right to have an abortion is a worthy cause for us, it isn't our actual main goal of removing capitalism. Same thing with racism or homophobia, wasn't Marx anti-semitic? Nothing but sectarianism BS :cursing: seeing as how we need all the comrades we can get since you might not of realized this but communism/anarchy isn't exactly looked upon in a good light here.

[Jazzratt]

therefore not all of those on this site support this fascist cencorship policy.

No.

Just fuck off.

This isn't even CLOSE to fuckin fascism, you silly ****.

[Dros]

Pretty sure there are a lot of communists who believe in "pro-life",

No. There are no Communists who are anti-choice because Communists advocate rights for all people, not just men.


seeing as how being a communists basically deals with emancipating the proletariat from capitalism.

Right. Communism is about emancipation of the masses. Note, it's not about emancipating the men only.


While womans right to have an abortion is a worthy cause for us, it isn't our actual main goal of removing capitalism.

The end of capitalism and the larger emancipation of humanity can only be brought about by liberating everyone. The emancipation of women and the free granting of the right to an abortion will necessarily be part of that and is a part of that goal.


Same thing with racism or homophobia,

Racism and homophobia are also part of emancipating the working class. Communism is about emancipation for all. It is not about emancipation, of the straight, white, men. Thus, a Communist society can not exist with racism, sexism, and homophobia.


wasn't Marx anti-semitic?

No.


Nothing but sectarianism BS :cursing:

:lol::lol::lol:

And which "sect" am I part of here? The anti-racist, anti-mysoginist, anti-homophobic sect? Because if so, that's a sectarianism that I can live with.


seeing as how we need all the comrades we can get since you might not of realized this but communism/anarchy isn't exactly looked upon in a good light here.

We need them for what?

This kind of economism totally eclipses the fact that we need to do this with a correct orientation. The revolution will be meaningless if it is not carried out in a way that can lead to Communism. This kind of attitude is not that way.

[Dean]

Pretty sure there are a lot of communists who believe in "pro-life", seeing as how being a communists basically deals with emancipating the proletariat from capitalism. While womans right to have an abortion is a worthy cause for us, it isn't our actual main goal of removing capitalism. Same thing with racism or homophobia, wasn't Marx anti-semitic? Nothing but sectarianism BS :cursing: seeing as how we need all the comrades we can get since you might not of realized this but communism/anarchy isn't exactly looked upon in a good light here.

No marx was not anti-semitic. That is a very base myth perpetuated by an extremely ignorant, reactionary response to his paper, "on the jewish question," which is a good read for those interested in religion and communism.

[freakazoid]

No marx was not anti-semitic. That is a very base myth perpetuated by an extremely ignorant, reactionary response to his paper, "on the jewish question," which is a good read for those interested in religion and communism.

Ooooh, I thought I had read it here that he was.


We need them for what?

To help bring about the destruction of capitalism. Do you think it is wise to ostracize would be comrades because they don't believe the exact same thing as you?


No. There are no Communists who are anti-choice because Communists advocate rights for all people, not just men.

You don't seem to understand people at all who oppose abortion. They don't do it because they wish to subjugate women, they do it because they believe that the fetus is a human being with rights to life. They are not our enemies but potential comrades. What we need to do is discuss and debate with them on why they are wrong.