Unfair Restrictions? II [Archive]

View Full Version : Unfair Restrictions? II

Pages : [1] 2 3

Jazzratt

25th August 2008, 12:58

This thread is for you to ask about your restriction or protest a restriction you feel was unfair. This is not a thread for you to whine that the moderating team/admins/CC are all really, really mean or that our restriction policy is wrong or "oppresive".

Holden Caulfield

25th August 2008, 14:05

as for ships-cat, speaking as the person who started the thread in the CC, yes that comment did play a massive part in affairs,

i haven't ever been on UK debate but i noticed before that you were clearly not a revolutionary-leftist, perhaps not even a leftist, and i asked in a profile message to you, and you PMed me back so that your ideology would remain a 'secret' i presume

i also was happy to let you remain unrestricted if nobody else cared/picked up on it, but you were being pissy in my forum, and its bad enough when i have to justify antifascism to lefties nevermind have to contend with you, you being the one who holds an opposing ideology,

i started the thread, people checked you out, a few posts later you get restricted,

i think the lesson here is if you are an OIer who has managed to stay unrestricted, dont piss off the moderators...

that said i hope you stay around,

Dean

25th August 2008, 14:51

I want to say that I didn't support your restriction, ships-cat, but that I find your opinions on the Israeli state to be lacking in even rudimentary knowledge. Please follow these news sites: http://www.haaretz.com/ and http://english.aljazeera.net/. I think you will find the facts on the ground to clash with the stories promoted by western media in the U.S. and U.K..

ships-cat

25th August 2008, 15:56

Hi there Holden, and thanks for that clarification.

I'm disappointed, I have to say. I always felt that I had tried to stay within the spirit of the wider forum, as I understood it. I tried to ensure that my posts where aimed at issues of fact, or technicalities, rather than attacking anyone's ideology.

The thread about the antifa was - I felt - a very clear case in point.
I was expressing a warning about the nature of vigilantism, and how this will inevitably lead to tragedies. This was entirely in line with what had actually HAPPENED - or at least, as stated as having happened by the person who started the post.

I was also PARTICULARLY upset at being accused of being a Troll. My understanding of the term goes something like "one who posts irrelevant or overtly provocative comments in order to de-rail a discussion". Does that really describe my post in that thread ? Or any other ? Irrelevant ? De-railing ? I've always striven to keep my points focussed on the issue in question. (well, OK, the occasionally humorous comment, but that is surely within the TOC).

This latter accusation really hurt Holden, and it saddens me. (most particularly as I suspect that the person who bought this to your attention is (a) an avid supporter of antifa and (b) would take a personal delight in me being sanctioned on this forum. (indeed, is already gloating about it; here and elsewhere).

Well, that is all water under the bridge; you've made your decision, I just hope you're comfortable with it.

Seeing as you're reading this, you might at LEAST do me the favour of telling me what the maximum floor loading of the OI forum is. And then stand aside.
Because as I'm STUCK here, I may as well take advantage of the more liberal posting regime to insert some sense into member Dean's head over the Arab/Israeli issue, and I suspect that heavy drilling equipment may be required ! :p

Meow Purr :)

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th August 2008, 16:01

Ha people accuse me of trolling on UK debate all the time!

Stick around on OI since the rest of the Capi crew will love you.

Dr Mindbender

25th August 2008, 16:05

for what it's worth SC, i opposed your restriction. I know you're here without ill intent.

;)

Seeing as you're reading this, you might at LEAST do me the favour of telling me what the maximum floor loading of the OI forum is. And then stand aside
nah dont worry, its built on the strongest, finest foundations that capitalism can buy!

:D

Dean

25th August 2008, 16:14

Because as I'm STUCK here, I may as well take advantage of the more liberal posting regime to insert some sense into member Dean's head over the Arab/Israeli issue, and I suspect that heavy drilling equipment may be required !

I have been following the conflict closely for years now. I have spoken to Israeli citizens in both Israel and the Occupied territories, and refugees in Palestine. I doubt you will change much - I have heard your arguments before. At least you were polite, though.

Here is a good documentary on the topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4

+Amnesty Int'l, a good resource:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/israeloccupied-palestinian-territories

ships-cat

25th August 2008, 17:28

Ha people accuse me of trolling on UK debate all the time!

Stick around on OI since the rest of the Capi crew will love you.

It's probably inappropriate (or at least, discourteous) to discuss events on ANOTHER forum HERE. However, please go to the Other Place and PM me ONE example of where a moderator accused you of being a troll ? (and in an open post, to boot). Just ONE.

Meow Purr >:(

ships-cat

25th August 2008, 17:39

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th August 2008, 17:40

It went a moderator but you should know mods are just normal users on revleft just given power to maintain the website by the CC

Dean

25th August 2008, 17:51

http://www.hercules-online.com/catalog/pics/Rotary_Drilling_Rig.jpg

You're ON boyo !

Do you want to start the thread, or shall I ? (or is there an existing one ? ).

Meow Purr.
I was hoping Jazzy would be kind enough to split our conversation to a new thread.

Dros

25th August 2008, 18:23

I supported your restriction because you're not a revolutionary leftist.

Holden Caulfield

25th August 2008, 18:38

nobody brought anything to my attention...

This latter accusation really hurt Holden, and it saddens me. (most particularly as I suspect that the person who bought this to your attention is (a) an avid supporter of antifa and (b) would take a personal delight in me being sanctioned on this forum. (indeed, is already gloating about it; here and elsewhere).

i acted individually and brought the issue before the CC

Killfacer

25th August 2008, 20:23

did people look for his posts on uk debate and then ban him? Thats a bit weird.

Bud Struggle

25th August 2008, 20:24

Seeing as you're reading this, you might at LEAST do me the favour of telling me what the maximum floor loading of the OI forum is. And then stand aside.
Because as I'm STUCK here, I may as well take advantage of the more liberal posting regime to insert some sense into member Dean's head over the Arab/Israeli issue, and I suspect that heavy drilling equipment may be required ! :p

Meow Purr :)

You are not STUCK in OI--you are free. You can say what you truly feel and believe rather than always look behind your back to see if you are following the "Party Line." We have found even the most mousey posters (not you of course, being a cat) blossom in OI. It's a lot more fun, with a lot more camaraderie here.

When the great day of the Revolution comes and while the Communists are argueing among themselves who is for abortion and who is a Trotskyist and who is a Stalinist and taking their recreational drugs and trying to out PC one another--we OI Brothers will stand sholder to sholder, clear eyed and vigilant at the Baracades with only four words on out lips, "They Shall Not Pass!"

(Of course we will be backed up but our legions of rat brained-cyborg-uber-soldiers, but that's for another thread. ;))

Welcome to OI!

Killfacer

25th August 2008, 20:26

yeah because all capitalists are like Gandalf.

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th August 2008, 21:41

yeah because all capitalists are like Gandalf.

Here is Tomk trying to sell his crunk

http://www.freewebs.com/quadeness/wizard9.jpg

Bud Struggle

25th August 2008, 21:50

But doesn't that make you RevLefter's Sauron and the Orcs? :lol:

spartan

25th August 2008, 22:23

I don't know why ships-cat was restricted exactly?

He may not have been a revolutionary leftist (I don't even know what his political beliefs are?) but he seemed a good fellow who contributed his thoughts to debates and didn't troll or disrupt the forum in anyway (and that should count for something in these matters I think).

Anyway like TomK said OI isn't that bad I suppose (not that I want to be restricted or anything.):lol::(

KrazyRabidSheep

25th August 2008, 22:52

But doesn't that make you RevLefter's Sauron and the Orcs? :lol:I always thought myself more of a Southron from Harad.

Sam_b

25th August 2008, 23:04

I don't know why ships-cat was restricted exactly?

He may not have been a revolutionary leftist

If he isn't a revolutionary leftist, then he belongs in OI.

Sentinel

26th August 2008, 00:29

I was hoping Jazzy would be kind enough to split our conversation to a new thread.

I assume you mean this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/israel-palestine-conflict-t87539/index.html?t=87539) conversation? In that case, done.

Dean

26th August 2008, 00:42

I assume you mean this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/israel-palestine-conflict-t87539/index.html?t=87539) conversation? In that case, done.
I was actually referring to the one in this thread, but this works too. Thanks.

ships-cat

26th August 2008, 10:18

Thanks for your support folks, but it's water under the bridge. Onwards and upwards.

Sentinel - thanks for the split, that's most helpful. :thumbup:

Ulster Socialist has confirmed that the forum's floor-loading is sufficient for all the heavy plant equipment I propose to be using. (sadly my picture of the drill in my previous post appears to have dissapeared).

Can you also confirm that the forums Monolithic Unquestionable Othodoxy insurance is up-to-date ? I hope to be creating a few cracks :D

Meow Purr :)

apathy maybe

26th August 2008, 10:40

Can you also confirm that the forums Monolithic Unquestionable Othodoxy insurance is up-to-date ? I hope to be creating a few cracks

We don't have insurance for that. Considering there is no "unquestionable orthodoxy" that covers the entire board.

Even the CC has a very broad range of views.

There are only a few things that aren't welcome at all on the board (fascism, various other irrationalities such as homophobia, sexism and racism for example), and even then only fascism is guaranteed to get a person banned. (We really don't like the others, but if they are only mild, the person may just be restricted.)

freakazoid

26th August 2008, 11:34

If he isn't a revolutionary leftist, then he belongs in OI.

What does it take for someone to be considered a "revolutionary" leftist?

Pirate turtle the 11th

26th August 2008, 11:45

What does it take for someone to be considered a "revolutionary" leftist?

Not to say things such as

http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4506.0

Killfacer

26th August 2008, 13:22

still seems a weird. Next youl see that i play as the Nazi's in the Castle Wolfenstien game, call me a fascist and then ban me.

ships-cat

26th August 2008, 14:24

Not to say things such as

http://www.ukdebate.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4506.0

Awww CJ, you're letting yourself down BADLY with that link. You have linked to one of the OPENING STATEMENTS of a debate on the concept of 'communes', and how they work. I was deliberately taking the 'opposing viewpoint' in order to kick everything off.

This was part of UK Debates "Team Debating" system, and I notice that the "left" team (red team) have abandoned the field already ?

You should be triply-ashamed, young man ! One for misleading people on this forum, twice for cynicly misrepresenting my beliefs, and thirdly for running away from a debate before it had even properly started.

You started with such enthusiasm, but it turned out you where a "anti-fash in a pan" <groooaaan>

I wonder if CC would allow me to put up a "Wanted" sign in LeftRev for another debating team ? :D

Meow Purr :)

freakazoid

26th August 2008, 16:25

Not to say things such as

Ok, but that doesn't quite answer my question though. Obviously being pro-capitalism is anti-leftist, but I am asking what does it take to be a "revolutionary" leftist. Also it would appear that ships-cat doesn't even believe in what was written.

Dr Mindbender

26th August 2008, 16:33

If he isn't a revolutionary leftist, then he belongs in OI.

at the risk of sounding controversial, i don't agree with this.

For a start, SC never openly expressed his personal ideaology on revleft making him apolitical. Despite his somewhat obnoxious and negative attitude on the issue of anti-fascism, we should have treated him as such as he never openly expressed an admiration or sympathy for capitalism.

Being apolitical is not an opposing ideology.

ships-cat

26th August 2008, 19:56

Not necessarily US.... an "apolitical" stance could nevertheless introduce a critique of marxism (as an example) through - say - economic, historical or social analysis; or indirectly through discussions of pretty much anything that happens to put the theory in a bad light as part of the subtext/context, and hence still disrupt the Dreamtime.

Anyway, OI has a better canteen.

Come to Opposing Ideologies !
WE HAVE TUNA :D
(well... on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays, anyway)

Meow Purr :)

Qwerty Dvorak

26th August 2008, 20:34

Awww CJ, you're letting yourself down BADLY with that link. You have linked to one of the OPENING STATEMENTS of a debate on the concept of 'communes', and how they work. I was deliberately taking the 'opposing viewpoint' in order to kick everything off.

This was part of UK Debates "Team Debating" system, and I notice that the "left" team (red team) have abandoned the field already ?

You should be triply-ashamed, young man ! One for misleading people on this forum, twice for cynicly misrepresenting my beliefs, and thirdly for running away from a debate before it had even properly started.

You started with such enthusiasm, but it turned out you where a "anti-fash in a pan" <groooaaan>

I wonder if CC would allow me to put up a "Wanted" sign in LeftRev for another debating team ? :D

Meow Purr :)
Is that a link to your post?

ships-cat

26th August 2008, 21:13

Ummm... if you mean the link that CJ posted earlier (the UK Debate one), then that is a link to a post that I made acting as "opposition" in a team debate.

Is that what you meant ? :)

Meow Purr :)

Dean

26th August 2008, 21:37

Holden Caulfield

26th August 2008, 21:41

We don't allow cats on the main forum. So there's not much we can help you with here :/

i would change your avatar then dean

Dros

26th August 2008, 23:08

Meow Purr :)

This is getting... obnoxiously boring.

i would change your avatar then dean

YES!:lol::lol::lol::lol:

PigmerikanMao

26th August 2008, 23:24

We don't allow cats on the main forum. So there's not much we can help you with here :/

Damn hypocrite.
~PMao :confused:

Qwerty Dvorak

27th August 2008, 00:35

Ummm... if you mean the link that CJ posted earlier (the UK Debate one), then that is a link to a post that I made acting as "opposition" in a team debate.

Is that what you meant ? :)

Meow Purr :)
Yeah, cool, thanks.

Red team argue that Capitalism is "unequal, unsustainable and inhuman", has been a "social disaster for the human race", and should be replaced by an anarchic commune system.
I'm not a communist and I certainly don't believe in an "anarchic commune system", but your defence of capitalism is very flawed in some parts so I'd like to address it. Just for fun, I'm not particularly formal about these things.

Well, I disagree. "Capitalism" was a giant leap forwards socialy, and everyone has reaped the benefits of it.
Well first of all, this statement is not at all relevant to capitalism being "unequal, unsustainable and inhuman", or whether or not it should be replaced. Something can be a giant leap forward socially but still be all three of those things. Marx even recognized that capitalism was a giant leap forward. You've done nothing to counter the assertion you are supposed to be opposing here.

HOWEVER... we should be carefull of what we mean by the term 'Capitalism'. It is NOT a system of government. It is NOT even a system of Economics. At it's most simple level, "capitalism" is a social concept that means that private individuals are allowed to own property. It also includes the concept that a person may 'employ' another person, and pay them a wage in return for undertaking labour of some sort.
How is it specifically a social concept? You haven't backed that assertion up. You say capitalism is based, at its core, on the idea that people should be able to own property and to employ other people to work for them. In other words, it is based on the concept of property rights and freedom of contract - two distinctly legal concepts.Now, I haven't read much capitalist theory but I haven't heard any proponent or opponent of capitalism ever describe it as a specifically legal theory (and very few describe it as a social concept). Property rights and freedom of contract are much better described as economic rights than as social, civil or human rights and regulation of these rights is very much intertwined with regulation of the economy. Thus I think that any system based primarily on the existence or non-existence of these rights, and the extent to which they can or should be regulated, can only be called an economic system.

This may seem so basic that you ask the question "what's all the fuss about ? ". Well, if you go back to feudal times (in the UK anyway), then private citizens where called peasants or serfs, and where slaves in all but name. We where NOT allowed to own anything: everything belonged to the local Lord or Baron. Similarly, we where not allowed to 'employ' people: that was the privlidge of the ruling classes and their duly appointed leutenants. We where not even allowed the freedom of travel: we where the 'property' of the local Lord.

Over a slow period of time the rules changed (one notable example was Magna Carta which - willst aimed at increasing the power of the Lords over the King, also set a precedent for a wider liberalisation). Gradualy private individuals where given more liberties. Indeed, "capitalism" started to come into being WAY before the term was officialy coined. Nevertheless, it was probably THE most important social concept in the development of our current society.
I won't argue with this. I should point out though that feudalism was a giant leap forward from barbarism, and yet it was unequal, inhuman and evidently unsustainable as well as it was replaced by the superior system of capitalism.

Also, you are equating the rise of liberalism and freedom-based political theory with the rise of capitalism. Okay, that's fair. They definitely greatly influenced each other. But liberalism is not capitalism, as capitalism is based, as I stated before, on property rights and freedom of contract. The rise of liberalism in the West, however, brought a lot more than just that. It brought the idea of human liberty in general onto the political scene. I would say that capitalism was a by-product of the rise of liberalism. Yet capitalism is not a synonym for capitalism.

But Capitalism does not exist in a vacuumn, nor is it a universal term. For example, our current society in the UK is NOT a pure capitalist system. Indeed, there has NEVER been a pure capitalist system ANYWHERE.
Aha, but here you are contradicting yourself. You said earlier in your argument that:

At it's most simple level, "capitalism" is a social concept that means that private individuals are allowed to own property. It also includes the concept that a person may 'employ' another person, and pay them a wage in return for undertaking labour of some sort.

Now, I cannot think of one nation in the West where private individuals are not allowed to own property or employ others. Of course, people are also allowed to do this in many eastern and southern countries as well, sometimes to a lesser extent. They are certainly allowed to do this in the UK.

I realize that you are talking about a "pure" capitalist system as something quite distinct from just any old capitalist system. But this in itself discredits your own definition of capitalism as posted above. You say that capitalism means that private people are allowed to own property or employ others. These things are binary functions; you can either own property or you cannot, you can either employ people or you cannot. There aren't really any differing degrees in between the "0" and the "1" of it; ownership may be conditional, but it is still ownership, the same goes for employment.

So with that in mind, what can you actually mean by a "pure capitalist system" other than one in which people are allowed to own property and employ people? And then, of course, your assertion that there are no pure capitalist systems completely falls down.

I realize none of this is doing much for the assertion that we should all live in anarcho-communism, but in fairness you have not tried to substantively refute that claim. All you have done is attempt to explain capitalism, and it doesn't help your case that you don't seem to know what you are trying to defend.

In the UK we have a "mixed economy", whereby a degree of Capitalism exists under a partialy "free market". To an extent, "supply and demand" determines the cost of products, as well as the level of wages in any given industry. However, there is also a considerable degree of government intervention and regulation. (duty on cigarettes and petrol, for example. Also, the existence of regulatory bodies such as the Monopolies and Mergers commission, Ofcom, Ofgas, and so forth). In addition, our POLITICAL system allows freedom of association, and the right to form trades unions (within certain restrictions), which in turn sets limits on the powers of employers. Finaly, there are absolute restrictions on the sale of certain items. (firearms, explosives etc).
I see. But people can still own property in the UK yes? And they can still employ people?

But this is also only a part of the jigsaw. Capitalism operates within a POLITICAL system; in our case, a democracy based on electoral representation. Even THIS is a simplification; whillst Parliament is supreme, the actuall day-to-day running of the country is devolved down to local government, as well as a bunch of arms-length semi-independant panels of experts called Quango's (quasi-autonomous national government organisations). Finally, we have the administration of Justice, (the Judiciary), which is also independant (in day-to-day terms) of Central Government.

It is a rich and complex tapestry of checks and balances that attempts to provide an environment that balances the rights of individuals to freely live their lives and strive in whatever direction they wish, with the rights of individuals NOT to be infringed on by others, whillst also trying to promote a "common good" agenda for the community as a whole.
This is a defence of parliamentary democracy, not of capitalism.

It is a system that gives the individual the greatest possible freedom to innovate, and to reap the rewards of that innovation. When you bemoan the powers of large corporations, remember that - without exception - they all started with one persons idea in a garden shed. (so to speak). They SUCEEDED because that persons innovation, or personal drive, was SUPERIOR to that of competing organisations or individuals.
Not all successful people got where they are because of their innovation or "personal drive". Think about it. Setting up a business, regardless of how innovative or driven you are, requires capital. There are literally billions of people in this world with insufficient capital to start up a business, I would say the majority of people in fact (think of the poorer areas of the world, as well as the working and lower middle classes in first world nations). Are you really, honestly telling me that every single person ever to have been driven or innovative or come up with some new idea, without exception, as you say, has just happened to be in this minority with start-up capital, and that all those without the capital to set up a business have never been driven, innovative or had a great new idea? That's gobsmackingly unlikely.

It's a similar situation with advancing through a career path, which requires education. Again, this is something that many in the world live without.

And it is not a matter of personal merit whether or not these people have sufficient education or start-up capital to become successful. It is, in the vast majority of cases, a matter of chance, depending on where you were born.

At the same time, people with no inate ability to innovate are not left behind: they can also share in the rewards of other peoples innovations by becoming employees: a VOLUNTARY contract, with renumeration negotiated by both sides. Hence the wealth arising from innovation is distributed.
It is a reality of life that there are more people in the world than jobs. With this in mind, do you think that both employer and (potential) employee have equal bargaining power when negotiating this contract? If they don't, exactly how voluntary is the contract? If I asked you to agree to a certain contract and you knew that you could well be shot or stabbed if you did not accept the contract, you would be very much inclined to accept it even if you strongly disagreed with its terms. It would be the same if you knew you were in danger of starving to death or dying of pneumonia if you did not accept the contract - both very possible results of being jobless.

What more perfect (in principle), more egalitarian system could anyone hope for ? What system could more elegantly meet the needs of the people for freedom of action, whillst still protecting their rights as individuals ? What system could better permit each person to strive towards their dreams and aspirations ?
I'm not really of the far left persuasion (anymore) but I would imagine a system where meeting the needs and aspirations of individuals is seen as an end, rather than a means to an end (ie, profit for employers).

Recall that we are NOT talking about capitalism here. We are talking about capitalism in a "regulated mixed market", under a devolved governmental system based around electoral representation. (e.g. we vote for people to get on with the job, and trust them to do it without micro-managing them, but with checks and balances present.).
More evidence that you are confused as to what exactly you are defending. Capitalism in a regulated mixed market meets all of your criteria for capitalism in its most simple form. So are we talking about capitalism, or aren't we? And if we're not, then what is capitalism?

And THIS sparkling gem is to be overthrown for a system that treats people like ants in an antheap ?
And that's it. That's your only reference to the system you are supposed to be arguing against, the only reference in this big long-winded argument of yours consists of 10 words; a system that treats people like ants in an antheap.

Not good enough.

ships-cat

27th August 2008, 12:44

I want Ever Closer Union on the red debate team... the Force is STRONG in this one :thumbup1:
(Come to the Dark Side ECU... we have Kippers :D )

Bear in mind that the "capitalism" post was not intended as an entity in and of itself, but a structural offshoot of the main team debate thread; a device to initiate a process of clarifying and deconstructing terminology, rather than being a completed opinion in its own right. (most UK Debate members are not familiar with much of the language used in left-wing or marxist theory. This is particularly true when a common-usage English word can have a significantly different dialectical meaning).

Or to put it another way: Its purpose was not to convince, but to be demolished (as you have done), and in the act of doing so to expose underlying issues and aspects for debate. These fragments would - I had hoped - have relevance at a later date in the primary team debate area. (at the point where I utterly crush the Red Team, and force them to flee the country and become Jehovas Witnesses. Well... maybe...).

Think of it as a stalking horse ? Or perhaps a catalyst ?

Sadly, it appears to be a moot point, as the "red" team appeared to have fled already. :(

woof woof:p

hajduk

29th August 2008, 15:19

We don't have insurance for that. Considering there is no "unquestionable orthodoxy" that covers the entire board.

Even the CC has a very broad range of views.

There are only a few things that aren't welcome at all on the board (fascism, various other irrationalities such as homophobia, sexism and racism for example), and even then only fascism is guaranteed to get a person banned. (We really don't like the others, but if they are only mild, the person may just be restricted.)so apathy you didnt answer me on my post on unfair restrictions I,is that mean that i am to revolutionary for you guys or what..?

apathy maybe

29th August 2008, 16:23

I'm not in the CC any more. I can't make any decision regarding whether you remain restricted or not.

I would suggest that you contact someone in the CC who you think would be sympathetic to unrestricting you, and ask them what they think. If they are, ask them to start a thread.

I can't start a thread regarding your case, I don't have any real influence on board policy.

Lamanov

29th August 2008, 17:22

If you have changed your views and decided to stop with trolling and spam, CC might reconsider your position.

Let me remind you of what your positions were, and what got you restricted:

...and that frustration in R.S. and in Serbia also came becouse Serbs are been 500 years under Turkish empire so that hatred stays in them even now in presence becouse they know they have lot of turkish blood in own veins and becouse of that there is lot of frustration in Serbian people so they whant revenge acusing bosnians...
...so you can see Spartan how is deep Serbs frustration of Turkish empire by what DJ-TC speaking i dont give a fuck about nations and politic in BiH but until Serbs dont appologise for what they do in BiH there will bee always people like DJ-TC in R.S. and Serbia who hide under democracy and revleft revolution...
...i tell you again it is about JUSTICE and nothing else becouse in bosnian army was people who are different ethnic groups and they fight against chetnick fascism and they been killed by chetnicks and for me they are victims same as people in Srebrenica...
...bosnian ortodox who liked to called himself Serbs (which they are not becouse they are born on bosnian land) whant to destroy Bosnia and part of bosnian land connect to Serbia..
...people who born in Bosnia are Bosnians but by religion they are muslims,ortodox,catholic,jews,atheist etc. that land belong to Bosnia and Herzegowina by constitute of the ruler of Bosnia KULIN BAN which is signed 800 years a go...
...i advise to you to look movie "NO MANS LAND" by director Danis Tanovich and maybe you will understand the complicity of agression on BiH...
...On the same way Radical Serbs does holocaust in Bosnia,not ethnic cleansening (what supposed to be cleaned?) over 80% of Serbs been radical chetnicks during Milosevich rule the Serbia, that is the fact, even now they admit they are chetnicks (pointing three fingers,selling the chetnicks items etc.)...
...whatever you take victims or something else it is the same result in war crimes ... chetnicks 9 ... others 1...You were adhering to Bosnian nationalist ("unitarist") positions and you were offensive to an ethnic group (Serbs, Croats) when you equated them with "their" war criminals. You were obsessed with identity politics and you identified yourself with a state.

Did you change?

You were also throw out for your bullshit in Philosophy forum.

Would you bullshit again?

bleedingheart

10th September 2008, 13:07

I believe I am unfairly restricted:crying:, because:

First of all, I am socialist, never claimed to be otherwise. So why must I restrict myself to opposing ideologies section? Am I no better than the capitalist, then?

Second, I was restricted due to so-called anti-immigrant comments, when in reality, I was only referring to those who commit crimes.:(

Third, even if #2 is true, all you have to do is consider my comments and questions in many other sections (such as learning, history etc.), and you'll realize that I've always asked and given a leftist perspective on practically all matters.:tt1: In view of this, don't you believe I should get the benefit of the doubt?

Finally, I wasn't even warned, nor was I told as to why I was being restricted.:confused: A mild warning could've helped present my views differently, perhaps without offending people around here.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that I am in trouble NOT due to ideological differences (cuz I am as red as they come), but on account of MY STYLE of presentation which, unfortunately, has offended some people. Hence, people have wrongly concluded that I am anti, when in truth, I am as lefty as anyone around here.;)

So I'd like an opportunity to correct this, perhaps I can change the way in which I present my ideas, so it may be a bit more palatable to sensitive people.:)

Dean

10th September 2008, 13:42

Second, I was restricted due to so-called anti-immigrant comments, when in reality, I was only referring to those who commit crimes.:(

Unless you're xenophobic, immigration has nothing to do with crime, and therefore is totally irrelevant to the issue. Bringing it up in the debate is bad enough as a sign of prejudice.

apathy maybe

10th September 2008, 14:16

So I'd like an opportunity to correct this, perhaps I can change the way in which I present my ideas, so it may be a bit more palatable to sensitive people.:)

I'm not in the CC, so I'm not privy to the reasons why you were restricted.

However, you were not banned. You are free to present your ideas in this forum as much as you like.

If, after perhaps a month (I don't recall there being a case shorter), the CC thinks you have changed, or that they were wrong to restrict you, you'll be let out.

In the mean time, enjoy your stay (complaining about it won't help, and will piss of certain people who will vote to keep you restricted merely because you complained).

hajduk

15th September 2008, 16:59

If you have changed your views and decided to stop with trolling and spam, CC might reconsider your position.

Let me remind you of what your positions were, and what got you restricted:

You were adhering to Bosnian nationalist ("unitarist") positions and you were offensive to an ethnic group (Serbs, Croats) when you equated them with "their" war criminals. You were obsessed with identity politics and you identified yourself with a state.

Did you change?

You were also throw out for your bullshit in Philosophy forum.

Would you bullshit again?why you whant to claim that my oppinion about that what happened in bosnia is nationalist retoric when you know that is not,for example what do you think about Kosovo independency?

Elliot_R

19th September 2008, 23:28

I would like to know why I was restricted. I do not support American imperalism and I was just about the defend my position before I got restricted.....

Jazzratt

20th September 2008, 02:37

Split off the post by Coffee Mug to this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revlefts-unjust-restriction-t89769/index.html?t=89769).

Lamanov

20th September 2008, 17:00

why you whant to claim that my oppinion about that what happened in bosnia is nationalist retoric when you know that is not

No, I know it is. Just look at what you wrote.

for example what do you think about Kosovo independency?

Example of what?

Fine, I'll indulge your wish; I fully - 100% - agree with this text: Serbian (http://aks.inicijativa.org/?q=node/13) / English (http://www.inicijativa.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Analyzes+of+the+situation+after+dec laration+of+Kosovo+%26quot%3Bindependence%26quot%3 B).

hajduk

20th September 2008, 22:02

No, I know it is. Just look at what you wrote.

Example of what?

Fine, I'll indulge your wish; I fully - 100% - agree with this text: Serbian (http://aks.inicijativa.org/?q=node/13) / English (http://www.inicijativa.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Analyzes+of+the+situation+after+dec laration+of+Kosovo+%26quot%3Bindependence%26quot%3 B).no you dont know no matter what you see becouse you didnt understand my point but that is not my fault so...

Lamanov

22nd September 2008, 13:57

Bud Struggle

25th September 2008, 11:50

You Commies didn't BAN Dejavu did you?

Why did you do that if you did?

IcarusAngel

25th September 2008, 11:55

Yes, that sucks. But if he's banned how come his account doesn't say he's banned.

Bud Struggle

25th September 2008, 12:13

Dejavu is Baconator. He changed because of some posting problems with the Dejavu screen name a while ago--he explained the problem and why he did it and there was no attempt to defraud.

I thought he was a pretty interesting. His last post was:

Right.The division of labor would be destroyed and we get a quick ticket back to primitivism. Precisely what the communist neomystics hope for.

Hardly the stuff of "BAN."

I'm thinking it's more of a log in problem.

apathy maybe

25th September 2008, 12:55

I think that if you bothered reading the admin actions thread, you would have your answer.

Banned the restricted member Baconator - Sockpuppet for Red Lobster.
Banned The Baconator - Sockpuppet.
Restricted Red Lobster - original account of restricted user Baconator.

Bud Struggle

25th September 2008, 13:18

I think that if you bothered reading the admin actions thread, you would have your answer.

Oh yea. Thank you AM.

So he could post in OI as Red Lobster? Who the hell is Red Lobster? This is very confusing. :confused::confused::confused:

hajduk

25th September 2008, 16:12

Yes, I did. Serbs are frustrated "chetniks", Albanians are a mob and the most important thing is preservation and "unity" of Bosnian-Herzegovian state. Other people read that too. Was there someone who actually understood "what you really meant"?first of all i didnt say that all serbs are frustrated chetniks,i say that moust of them are frustrated and that shown up during proclaiming the kosovo independency as you saw himself on pictures i put it here and pictures dont lie,second i didnt say that all albanians are mob but i say that albanian mob will use the kosovo independency for own interests which is the fact,and third unity of BiH i use in the matter to explain that should be good way to avoid the holokaust over people who lived in BiH during 91-95 but frustrated "bosnian serbs" how they called himself are choose to kill,rape and destroy HUMANS who are not been "bosnian serbs",so do you got a picture now or you will continue to insulting me that i am nationalist?

Killfacer

25th September 2008, 16:19

i think that red lobster is also baconator? and they just narrowed his 3 accounts down to one by banning 2?

freakazoid

25th September 2008, 19:57

I think that if you bothered reading the admin actions thread, you would have your answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Dagger http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restrictions-ii-t87501/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restrictions-ii-t87501/showthread.php?p=1247475#post1247475)
Banned the restricted member Baconator - Sockpuppet for Red Lobster.
Banned The Baconator - Sockpuppet.
Restricted Red Lobster - original account of restricted user Baconator.

Didn't he say once that he made the account Baconator because he couldn't remember how to access the other account, or was that someone else?

Malezani

19th October 2008, 18:52

Can i be unrestricted please?

my restriction was probably due to this

"It is natural for hierarchy and the class system to exist as some people are qualitatively superior than others and they have the right to exploit them.
Long live capitalism!"

I was just expressing the concern i had with communism. After Mikeprole's response I can describe myself as a communist and I would like to start posting on the Learning subforum.

Also disregard the :long live capitalism" thing. I was just being a dick.
Thank you for your consideration.
Also take a look at the rest of my posts primarily on religion

Bud Struggle

19th October 2008, 19:02

danyboy27

19th October 2008, 21:23

You guys should seriously consider reasscessing Killfacer's position in RevLeft--he seems like a pretty proven Commie to me. Maybe he still has things to learn, but I think he's headed in the right direction.

also, if i am not restricted myself, why killfacer should be restricted?

i mean, i have been pretty harsh toward sacro saint communist values and principles, the only reason why i am not restricted yet is beccause i didnt take a dump in the commie section, an error that maybe killfacer did.

Rascolnikova

22nd October 2008, 18:22

I believe I have been restricted because I am in favor of reducing abortion.

I stated clearly that I support the legality of abortion under virtually all circumstances, but that I feel that in the debate over legality, the practical importance of reducing abortion via means such as improved birth control and better education for women is much overlooked. This is especially important since abortion is more often fatal to women than natural births, which I also pointed out.

I am more pro-choice than I am anti-abortion, but I am definitely anti-abortion. I wouldn't have brought it up, but the thread seemed to be about the lack of compatibility of anti-abortion stances with feminism.

If suggesting that we ought to,

a) have abortion entirely legal

and

b) aggressively reduce abortion rates by making less dangerous options more accessible to women

is un-feminist or reactionary, as stated in the thread, I'd love to know how. . .

I mean, seriously. . . what the fuck?

Killfacer

22nd October 2008, 18:31

BobKKKindle$

23rd October 2008, 11:25

Rascolnikova, as I already mentioned in my message to you, when I asked you about your stance on abortion you said you advocated restrictions during the late stages of pregnancy - you suggested that such abortions should only be allowed when there is a risk to heath of the woman. Although abortions at this stage do often occur because of health concerns there are also other legitimate reasons for wanting to have an abortion - for example, a woman may not be able to recognize that she has become pregnant because of the trauma arising from a rape experience, if the woman is young she may be too afraid to arrange an abortion until the signs of pregnancy become too obvious to hide, and a woman may also suffer a change in domestic arrangements such as the loss of a partner which affects her ability to care for a child. A further reason is that older women often confuse the early symptoms of pregnancy with the menopause and so are not aware that they are pregnant. These are all issues to be considered but none of them are connected with health - under your policy none of these issues would allow a woman to have a late-term abortion, which is clearly an unfair restriction of access, and that's why you're restricted. Ultimately the reason for wanting to have an abortion are not important - if a woman wants to go on holiday and decides to abort just before she is due to give birth, that's fine, and any kind of restriction is a violation of her autonomy.

Our policy is that advocating any kind of restriction is sufficient grounds for restriction, but even if you had opposed restrictions on practical grounds your position of being "anti-abortion" would still be cause for concern.

Rascolnikova

23rd October 2008, 12:28

Except for certain rare instances where there are very specific health concerns to the mother, an abortion right before birth is less safe to the mother than simply inducing labor. At this point, we're also simply killing a baby so that we don't have to take care of it.

I recognize that the demands of feminism might necessitate sometimes killing babies so that we don't have to take care of them, and I'm not going to argue that this should never be done. . . but is it really so terrible to suggest that under this circumstance we ought to give the babies away instead of killing them?

For that matter, if for some reason we decide that we should still kill these infants instead of giving them away, isn't it a better humanitarian and medical procedure to induce labor, and then kill the baby after it's born? Given how illegal it is to kill babies under the current legal system, it would never fly, but it would save lives over permitting very late term abortions.

To anyone familiar with childbearing it is clear that not recognizing a pregnancy by late in the third trimester is implausible--trauma or menopause notwithstanding--unless the individual in question has experienced an amazing level of oppression and ignorance, which shouldn't be able to take place under ideal legal conditions anyway.

You will, I hope, forgive me for preferring an increase in pregnancy planning, education, social support, and prevention over an invasive and sometimes life-threatening operation?

Finally, is this really so central to the idea of a socialist revolution that I can't be trusted to converse in any part of the wider forum without turning it into a generalist debate? Does this really make me counterrevolutionary?

Killfacer

23rd October 2008, 12:46

Bud Struggle

23rd October 2008, 13:16

Your digging a hole. Stop.

Killfacer's right. The Party Line is you have to be willing to tear the baby from the mother's womb right up to the moment of birth. No exceptions, no regrets. :cool:

Rascolnikova

23rd October 2008, 16:15

I'm already restricted, and as I'm here to learn, I have no interest in staying if I'm not permitted to ask questions on what I see in the rest of the forum. You say I'm digging a hole; I say I'm expressing my views. Either way, I don't have anything to loose.

Killfacer

23rd October 2008, 16:19

The main problem is your callign abortion "the killing of infants". Which it isn't.

freakazoid

23rd October 2008, 17:20

Finally, is this really so central to the idea of a socialist revolution that I can't be trusted to converse in any part of the wider forum without turning it into a generalist debate? Does this really make me counterrevolutionary?

Apparently it is. Seeing as how OI is supposed to keep people from trolling other threads, they must think that anybody who is "pro-life" can do nothing but troll.

Bud Struggle

23rd October 2008, 18:58

The main problem is your callign abortion "the killing of infants". Which it isn't.

Abortion IS NOT the killing of infants in the main RevLeft, but it IS the killing of infants in OI.

Your smartest bet right now Rasco is to have some Commie Club RevLefter tell you exactly what you believe then keep making pleading posts telling everyone how you've seen the light and changed your mind. you, of course don't have to really believe what they tell you--you just have to pretend that you do.

I've seen it work before.

Rascolnikova

23rd October 2008, 23:55

Abortion IS NOT the killing of infants in the main RevLeft, but it IS the killing of infants in OI.

Your smartest bet right now Rasco is to have some Commie Club RevLefter tell you exactly what you believe then keep making pleading posts telling everyone how you've seen the light and changed your mind. you, of course don't have to really believe what they tell you--you just have to pretend that you do.

I've seen it work before.

*shrugs*

Fuck that.

I like rev left, but honesty is important to me.

Rascolnikova

24th October 2008, 00:04

Though, it becomes clear--perhaps I should mention, I feel any woman should be able to end any pregnancy at any time by inducing labor, with full medical disclosure, and then, if she wishes to and the fetus survives, renounce responsibility for the child via turning cradle laws.

I just don't see why it should always be legal to kill the fetus, especially at the end of pregnancy where it is almost always safer for the woman to give live birth.

RedAnarchist

24th October 2008, 00:10

I just don't see why it should always be legal to kill the fetus, especially at the end of pregnancy where it is almost always safer for the woman to give live birth.

I don't understand what you mean here."Killing" the foetus is abortion, so if the woman wants an abortion, then the foetus is destroyed.

pusher robot

24th October 2008, 01:02

I don't understand what you mean here."Killing" the foetus is abortion, so if the woman wants an abortion, then the foetus is destroyed.

I think the point being made was that "ending the pregnancy" != "killing the fetus," at least past the point of viability. So whatever justifications deployed to justify a woman's right to end the pregnancy do not automatically justify terminating the life of the fetus.

Rascolnikova

24th October 2008, 03:10

I think the point being made was that "ending the pregnancy" != "killing the fetus," at least past the point of viability. So whatever justifications deployed to justify a woman's right to end the pregnancy do not automatically justify terminating the life of the fetus.

Thank you; well put. "ending pregnancy =/= killing (and I'm happy to use another word, though I feel the word "kill" applies well enough to any destruction of live cells) the fetus" is my central point.

I'm all about women having the freedom to end pregnancies at any point. In most very late term situations, though, abortion doesn't make any sense as the way to do it; it's only good is relieving the necessity of someone caring for a child.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

24th October 2008, 03:20

Rascolnikova

24th October 2008, 05:42

At this point, we're also simply killing a baby so that we don't have to take care of it.
Ah, that about does it.

Ironically, I'm not even making the argument that we shouldn't kill babies. .. and as distasteful as it seems, am not going to argue that we shouldn't kill babies. I merely argue that if we are going to kill babies--or fetuses, if it better suits you to not to call something a baby till it's born--it ought to be doing someone, some how, some good.

my argument doesn't hinge on not killing babies at all. . . but I suppose even using the phrase reveals that I'm actually a capitalist fundamentalist christian pro-lifer?

Jazzratt

24th October 2008, 10:07

my argument doesn't hinge on not killing babies at all. . . but I suppose even using the phrase reveals that I'm actually a capitalist fundamentalist christian pro-lifer?

No. It reveals that you have a contempt for women's choice.

Also, if you want to debate the finer points of abortion do it in another thread. We're not going to change our policiy on anti-choicers because of your arguments, your no different from the rest of the caged "leftists".

Rascolnikova

24th October 2008, 10:14

No. It reveals that you have a contempt for women's choice.

Also, if you want to debate the finer points of abortion do it in another thread. We're not going to change our policiy on anti-choicers because of your arguments, your no different from the rest of the caged "leftists".

The policies I advocate would allow any woman to choose to stop being pregnant at any time for any reason. How is that contempt for woman's choice?

Jazzratt

24th October 2008, 11:23

The policies I advocate would allow any woman to choose to stop being pregnant at any time for any reason. How is that contempt for woman's choice?

You support inducing labour. I'm reliably informed that this is an uncomfortable state, especially when compared to a sterile abortion.

Rascolnikova

24th October 2008, 11:43

You support inducing labour. I'm reliably informed that this is an uncomfortable state, especially when compared to a sterile abortion.

Compared to a sterile early term abortion. Late term abortions are very brutal on the body.

. . .

Fuck this. y'all have fun being self defeating, and unreasonable; I suspect I'll mostly be somewhere else.

freakazoid

24th October 2008, 17:20

Question question. /me flails his hands wildly in the air. How do they perform late term abortions?

Rascolnikova

25th October 2008, 06:21

Question question. /me flails his hands wildly in the air. How do they perform late term abortions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_(birth)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28birth%29)
Once you're nine months pregnant, there's not really a comfortable way to become no longer pregnant.

Jazzratt's Edit: Fixed last link.

Jazzratt

25th October 2008, 12:34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_(birth)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28birth%29)
Once you're nine months pregnant, there's not really a comfortable way to become no longer pregnant.

Jazzratt's Edit: Fixed last link.

From the descriptions of the options open to a woman D&E sounds pretty much the most comfortable as it can be performed under general anæsthetic. But seriously, if you want to debate abortions this is not the thread for it.

Killfacer

25th October 2008, 16:10

dont worry, you may seem like a pariah now but you will be welcomed into the restricted community with open arms.

Not by me, i think your sick.

Rascolnikova

25th October 2008, 18:18

dont worry, you may seem like a pariah now but you will be welcomed into the restricted community with open arms.

Not by me, i think your sick.

Awe, thanks.

And, Jazzrat, this is me not answering the last point you've made in the argument you're telling me not to have.

Bud Struggle

26th October 2008, 22:26

Awe, thanks.

And, Jazzrat, this is me not answering the last point you've made in the argument you're telling me not to have.

Yea, WELCOME Rasco! Life's more fun in OI--you can actually post what you think instead of just saying what you are told to think.

Quite resfreshing, when you think of it.

Algernon

26th October 2008, 22:35

For some reason I'm not restricted, but even so I'm only really interested in OI. Best discussions are here I find.

Bud Struggle

26th October 2008, 22:39

For some reason I'm not restricted, but even so I'm only really interested in OI. Best discussions are here I find.

Indeed! We're the creme de la creme of RevLeft. Anyone could join RevLeft--we're specially chosen to be in OI. :)

Dust Bunnies

27th October 2008, 21:00

I will say OI has many great personalities and is always fun when I browse here.

Killfacer

10th November 2008, 15:24

Any chance im gonna be set unrestricted soon?

10th November 2008, 15:26

Any chance im gonna be set unrestricted soon?

Edit: Did you change your believes about capitalism?Are you really a revolutionary left?How about this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-every-lefties-t76115/index.html?p=1125684), did you completely changed opinion?
You are of the few restricted members that dont troll and if you are really changed, i will be very glad to have you in the "normal" forum!;)

Fuserg9:star:

Killfacer

10th November 2008, 18:54

10th November 2008, 18:58

That was just me being a twat. I expressed some doubts about commonly held beliefs amongst leftist. I will not deny that i still have some doubts about how likely a revolution is to happen within my lifetime, but i do believe and have always beleived that the current system is unacceptable.

sooo are you an anti-capitalist, an anti-imperialist, an anti-racist and anti-facist?(alot of anti's :lol:).How would you describe yourself politically?

Fuserg9:star:

Killfacer

10th November 2008, 21:47

sooo are you an anti-capitalist, an anti-imperialist, an anti-racist and anti-facist?(alot of anti's :lol:).How would you describe yourself politically?

Fuserg9:star:

I am anti all those things yes. Particuarly anti-fascist and anti-racist. I am not sure how i would describe myself, certainly i would not wish to label myself as some kind of "ist" if you see what i mean. I guess my political ideas have most in common with anarcho-communism. I would like to impress upon you though that i do not consider myself an anarcho-communist.

Black Dagger

11th November 2008, 03:45

For some reason I'm not restricted, but even so I'm only really interested in OI. Best discussions are here I find.

So umm... is there something we should know about? :blink:

Post-Something

11th November 2008, 10:42

For some reason I'm not restricted, but even so I'm only really interested in OI. Best discussions are here I find.

That's what I thought when I first got here, but little by little, as your beliefs grow stronger, you tend to want to discuss narrower things and focus on more detailed issues since the big common ones like human nature just become repetatove and ingrained in you.

sooo are you an anti-capitalist, an anti-imperialist, an anti-racist and anti-facist?(alot of anti's :lol:).How would you describe yourself politically?

Fuserg9:star:

Tbh, I think Killfacer has presented a clearer understanding of the left than the majority of the people that visit this forum. He should have been unrestricted ages ago. Plus, I think he's actually done more than the average member to attract possible leftists to our cause, considering what I've seen of him in OI; and he sounds quite comfortable and consistent with his views. Actually, I even had to ask him personally what his views were just to check he wasn't being sarcastic, or "pretending" to be a leftist.

Verdict: Killfacer should be released from his OI cage into the RevLeft jungle to frolic with his kind.

RGacky3

14th November 2008, 20:21

Just a General question are Social-Democrats restricted? I.E. reformers?

Jazzratt

14th November 2008, 22:23

Sometimes.

Bud Struggle

14th November 2008, 23:28

Sometimes.

FWIW: Yup sometimes, on OI you can easily find the Restricted RGacky fighting the true Communist cause against RevLefters of high rank and degree who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

The guy knows his Commie stuff better than 90% of the Commies here. Yet he's restricted.

You (in my humble OI opinion) are making a mistake there.

Capitalists would never make such a mistake over such a trifle. :)

danyboy27

15th November 2008, 00:33

FWIW: Yup sometimes, on OI you can easily find the Restricted RGacky fighting the true Communist cause against RevLefters of high rank and degree who haven't a clue what they are talking about.

The guy knows his Commie stuff better than 90% of the Commies here. Yet he's restricted.

You (in my humble OI opinion) are making a mistake there.

Capitalists would never make such a mistake over such a trifle. :)

true that, RGacky is exactly the kind of member revleft should unrestrict, mainly beccause he his what he say: an hardcore leftist, defending his ideology.

lets make a deal: restrict me, but unrestrict him, i think that a good deal eh? i mean come on! i dont know how much people in the CC have told shit about me, but i am pretty sure a whole bunch.

Bud Struggle

15th November 2008, 00:43

true that, RGacky is exactly the kind of member revleft should unrestrict, mainly beccause he his what he say: an hardcore leftist, defending his ideology.

lets make a deal: restrict me, but unrestrict him, i think that a good deal eh? i mean come on! i dont know how much people in the CC have told shit about me, but i am pretty sure a whole bunch.

And he's SPOT ON with it. And even better--he even can make it sound like Communism makes sense! Which surely is a not gift given to most RevLefters. :lol:

His convictions on Abortion are fair heartfelt and well thought out. Maybe you don't agree--but the man's more of a true believer in Communism than most Commie Clubers.

15th November 2008, 00:48

true that, RGacky is exactly the kind of member revleft should unrestrict, mainly beccause he his what he say: an hardcore leftist, defending his ideology.

lets make a deal: restrict me, but unrestrict him, i think that a good deal eh? i mean come on! i dont know how much people in the CC have told shit about me, but i am pretty sure a whole bunch.

You have already restricted yourself, so thats not a fair deal, we do not accept it!Have you anything else to offer?:sleep:

Fuserg9:star:

danyboy27

15th November 2008, 00:51

You have already restricted yourself, so thats not a fair deal, we do not accept it!Have you anything else to offer?:sleep:

Fuserg9:star:

i would have said my soul but you guy dont believe in god or any organized religion so nevermind.

15th November 2008, 01:03

i would have said my soul but you guy dont believe in god or any organized religion so nevermind.

Holden Caulfield might want your soul, you probably should contact him to arrange that!:lol:

Fuserg9:star:

danyboy27

15th November 2008, 01:21

well, if my soul dont do it, i can give you an excuse!
ready for the trolling?

LULZ

i seriously mean it, unrestrict wacky, it will make the life of the IOer easier, i seriously mean it.
Every time i try to start a tread with the word STATE in it, he kill it, and i cannot stand it anymore.

Elliot_R

15th November 2008, 03:07

can i be unrestricted pleeeeeeease? i'm not capitalist , have no idea why i was restricted in the first place (i asked but no answer). it's been about 2 months (i think?) since i was restricted. if you dont unrestrict me can you at least tell me why i was restricted?

Jazzratt

15th November 2008, 10:40

danyboy27

15th November 2008, 15:03

Are you still pro-Israel? That was the main reason for your restriction.

LOL that must be a fucking joke!

Plagueround

16th November 2008, 02:42

Elliot_R

16th November 2008, 07:52

no i'm not pro-isreal, nor was i ever. i simply emphasized the fact that terrorism is bad regardless of who does it and most people here has a bias for palastinian terrorism being good because its against US imperalism and blind contempt for israel because its supported by US interests.

Rascolnikova

16th November 2008, 15:58

Killfacer

16th November 2008, 17:30

Why in shit's name has Rascolnikova been unrestricted before me?

humanitynow

16th November 2008, 18:12

why do we even need to restrict of ban any one. can't we just ignore those who we have absolte contempt for. why do we need so many rules on a website with so many anarchists

16th November 2008, 18:15

why do we even need to restrict of ban any one. can't we just ignore those who we have absolte contempt for. why do we need so many rules on a website with so many anarchists

because we need a place where we can talk by our own with no capitalists and etc people interfere our talking?:confused:

#FF0000

16th November 2008, 20:31

why do we even need to restrict of ban any one. can't we just ignore those who we have absolte contempt for. why do we need so many rules on a website with so many anarchists

Well, first off, anarchism doesn't mean no order. And second, if we didn't restrict, it would be impossible to carry on conversation.

And if we couldn't ban either, then we'd be full of trolls and racists.

Bud Struggle

16th November 2008, 20:37

Why in shit's name has Rascolnikova been unrestricted before me?
It's a matter of style--Rasco's a woman that writes quite charmingly--quite rare in RevLeft. Your another cider drinking Brit guy--plenty of those in RevLeft.

danyboy27

16th November 2008, 20:39

How do you differentiate between terrorism and revolutionary violence?

usually, when the act of violence consist of blowing up civilian buses, or bombing civilian area with unguided rocket on purpose.

dont get me wrong, i consider what the israeli doing terrorism too.

Jazzratt

16th November 2008, 20:40

Why in shit's name has Rascolnikova been unrestricted before me?

Because her thread, and resultant poll, was started before yours.

Plagueround

16th November 2008, 20:42

It's a matter of style--Rasco's a woman that writes quite charmingly--quite rare in RevLeft. Your another cider drinking Brit guy--plenty of those in RevLeft.

Or...It could be because he asked to be unrestricted a few days later than the thread on her was started. Also, up until recently, she's been much clearer on her ideals than he has.

Rascolnikova

16th November 2008, 20:44

usually, when the act of violence consist of blowing up civilian buses, or bombing civilian area with unguided rocket on purpose.

dont get me wrong, i consider what the israeli doing terrorism too.

How do you feel about those kinds of violence when they specifically target financial districts in wealthy cities?

Bud Struggle

16th November 2008, 20:46

Or...It could be because he asked to be unrestricted a few days later than the thread on her was started. Also, up until recently, she's been much clearer on her ideals than he has.

On the first point I have no issue, on the second--when does clarity or total maturity of thought get one into RevLeft?

It is after all a place of LEARNING. :)

danyboy27

16th November 2008, 20:49

How do you feel about those kinds of violence when they specifically target financial districts in wealthy cities?

a human life is a human life, regardeless of the money this person earn, if this person is not military personnal and unarmed, there is no reason to attack him.

Rascolnikova

16th November 2008, 20:58

a human life is a human life, regardeless of the money this person earn, if this person is not military personnal and unarmed, there is no reason to attack him.

I have a lot of respect for that. .

but it seems to me that the un-armed, the non-military, are generally the ones making decisions that cause people to die.

Violence is an issue I'm extremely ambivalent on. On a theoretical basis I can accept it unflinchingly--if assassinating a few hundred un-armed oil executives would get shell (and the others) out of the Niger delta, I could in no way argue that that wouldn't save lives on balance.

In real life, it is possibly my least favorite thing, and I remain unconvinced that it's practical in all foreseeable cases which have been presented to me.

I need to learn how to put these sorts of tangents in other threads.

Plagueround

16th November 2008, 21:00

On the first point I have no issue, on the second--when does clarity or total maturity of thought get one into RevLeft?

It is after all a place of LEARNING. :)

Clarity as in affirming he is not a capitalist, as the posts that got him restricted certainly implied.

Bud Struggle

16th November 2008, 21:20

Clarity as in affirming he is not a capitalist, as the posts that got him restricted certainly implied.

Yea, but the 803 post after that one definitely clarified the point that he was NOT a Capitalist. As a matter of fact, he's really been doing a rather well as explaining himself as non-Marxist Communist.

Anyway, bring him into the Communist fold and that will certainly clarify any issues he may hold. He's a believer--maybe not a true understander--but he's way better than a lot in RevLeft.

And on another subject, RGacky, did you notice he holds the Communist line in the racist threads--in arguments against RevLefters--it's a CLASS WAR, not a race war.

I know we Capitalists suck, but we beat you and will beat you guys EVERY TIME--for one reason and only one reason--we can open our hearts to all people and all beliefs.

Capitalism is one guy firing a shotgun blast of a thousand kinds of understandings and beliefs.

Communism is a rifle with a thousand guys trying for a chance at the trigger.

Plagueround

16th November 2008, 21:45

Yea, but the 803 post after that one definitely clarified the point that he was NOT a Capitalist. As a matter of fact, he's really been doing a rather well as explaining himself as non-Marxist Communist.

I'd say recently yes. Most of his other posts have always held a very libertarian viewpoint which I enjoy, but I don't think he's represented his belief very clearly until recently.

Anyway, bring him into the Communist fold and that will certainly clarify any issues he may hold. He's a believer--maybe not a true understander--but he's way better than a lot in RevLeft.While I'm not going to discuss the full "events" on the subject, I will simply say if it comes to a vote I'll vote for his unrestriction. You also make this claim about some posters being "worse" than most of the OIers, yet you never name them. Call them out and debate them, see what they're made of.

And on another subject, RGacky, did you notice he holds the Communist line in the racist threads--in arguments against RevLefters--it's a CLASS WAR, not a race war.That's because RGacky is a pretty decent communist. He's also in violation of the rules of the site. Not much I can do about that at this point.

I know we Capitalists suck, but we beat you and will beat you guys EVERY TIME--for one reason and only one reason--we can open our hearts to all people and all beliefs.I'd say in an attempt to focus discussion the restriction policy is a bit overboard in certain aspects, but speaking from experience outside this site the communists I've talked to or met are not at all unaccepting. The reason this is is not because of a flaw in the ideology, but because this is a discussion forum with a particular audience it is intended for. It is no different from any other forum in this regard, with one exception. We actually have an OI forum, something not many forums do...most of the just ban you outright. However, if you can show me that all capitalist websites will create a special forum for me to express my views and debate them, perhaps I'll consider it.

Capitalism is one guy firing a shotgun blast of a thousand kinds of understandings and beliefs.Because he's trying to inflict as much damage as possible?

Communism is a rifle with a thousand guys trying for a chance at the trigger.I'd say at this point we're more like a thousand guys all trying to figure out the best way to assemble and fire a rifle...a rifle that's been misused and repeatedly dropped in the mud by a few people in the past. ;)

danyboy27

16th November 2008, 22:07

I have a lot of respect for that. .

but it seems to me that the un-armed, the non-military, are generally the ones making decisions that cause people to die.

Violence is an issue I'm extremely ambivalent on. On a theoretical basis I can accept it unflinchingly--if assassinating a few hundred un-armed oil executives would get shell (and the others) out of the Niger delta, I could in no way argue that that wouldn't save lives on balance.

In real life, it is possibly my least favorite thing, and I remain unconvinced that it's practical in all foreseeable cases which have been presented to me.

I need to learn how to put these sorts of tangents in other threads.
a corporation is not made of the people who run it, its a mad train running foward, no matter how much oil worker or executives you kill, all matter to them is profit, and shareholder wont care that they lost the whole executive, has long has they can still make money, they will invest in security, push the OPEC countries to have harder stances on their population, finance their dictatorship even more.
Attacking the military of saudi arabia on the other hand, would make a dirrect pressure on the problem. If you can make the military bleed dry beccause they are chasing you, loosing grip over their people, and eventually topple the bad recime, this would make the problem change.

if you play with violence, play fair, beccause if its possible for us to kill a fews executives, its possible for them to kill a thousand of civilian just in order to get the ones who did this.

Rascolnikova

17th November 2008, 04:28

a corporation is not made of the people who run it, its a mad train running foward, no matter how much oil worker or executives you kill, all matter to them is profit, and shareholder wont care that they lost the whole executive, has long has they can still make money, they will invest in security, push the OPEC countries to have harder stances on their population, finance their dictatorship even more.
Attacking the military of saudi arabia on the other hand, would make a dirrect pressure on the problem. If you can make the military bleed dry beccause they are chasing you, loosing grip over their people, and eventually topple the bad recime, this would make the problem change.

if you play with violence, play fair, beccause if its possible for us to kill a fews executives, its possible for them to kill a thousand of civilian just in order to get the ones who did this.

Would you care to have a thread for this conversation somewhere? I would.

I am trying really hard to get in the habit of less spam.

danyboy27

17th November 2008, 04:36

Would you care to have a thread for this conversation somewhere? I would.

I am trying really hard to get in the habit of less spam.

good idea

Killfacer

17th November 2008, 16:52

Much clearer than mine? Shes a self hating woman who thinks abortion is murder and that doctors who peform them are baby killers.

But thats fair enough if she came up before me, just wanted to make sure i hadn't been lost in the monolithic bureaucracy of the CC.

As for you tom, i have plenty of style.

Rascolnikova

17th November 2008, 17:25

Much clearer than mine? Shes a self hating woman who thinks abortion is murder and that doctors who peform them are baby killers.

That's right; I'm clearly a "self-hating woman who thinks abortion is murder and that doctors who preform them are baby killers."

:rolleyes:

Killfacer

17th November 2008, 17:49

:lol:

RGacky3

17th November 2008, 18:06

The guy knows his Commie stuff better than 90% of the Commies here. Yet he's restricted.

I appreciate that, unfortunately the restricting has nothing to do with how much of a socialist you are, or how much you know or whatever, its if you hold a belief that is what the CC consideres non-leftist, unfortunately I hold one of those (anti abortion), and I stand by it.

And he's SPOT ON with it. And even better--he even can make it sound like Communism makes sense! Which surely is a not gift given to most RevLefters.

Thanks again, maybe thats why they restricted me :p, so I'm stuck to making a case for communism in the OI :), I'll just assume that, the CC sent me on a mission.

But all in all, its not a huge deal, I think its rediculous and uncalled for, but its not my site, and its not my rules, and the real fight is being faught on the picket lines, in the union halls, in the workplaces, on the streets, not on the computer, and as long as I can play my small part in the real fight, thats what counts.

But I appreciate your guys' kind words.

freakazoid

18th November 2008, 10:26

I'd say at this point we're more like a thousand guys all trying to figure out the best way to assemble and fire a rifle...a rifle that's been misused and repeatedly dropped in the mud by a few people in the past. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif

Sounds like you guys need an AK, easy to get to working and hella reliable, :D

Ele'ill

21st November 2008, 02:57

Hey

I posted in the first unrestrict me now thread. This must be a new one and I look forward to a fresh start. I was restricted because my questioning and challenging of the left's ideas must have some how come across as being 'anti left' and thus I was red flagged (no pun) as being not the cool and thoughtful person that I am. ;)

I think that some of my redeeming features include but are not limited to, almost creating an epic David the Gnome thread until Jazzrat promptly stepped in to remind us that here on revleft, leftist rhetoric from the 1800's is the only spam allowed. :D:blushing:

Being able to switch sides in the middle of a heated debate and have nobody notice.

Sneaking in snippets of fuzzy psychological opinion if and if not applicable to the current conversation.

And the last for now: I have an admiration of good beers as does Jazzrat.
(I'm drinking a Dogfish Head Pumpkin Ale)

apathy maybe

21st November 2008, 09:16

Ele'ill

21st November 2008, 16:40

So, what are you views on economics? Do you think that it's A-OK for people to have to work 12 hours a day? Do you find it fine that some people "get by" on less then $1 a day, while others make millions?

Are you a capitalist? Do you think that capitalism is OK, but needs some changes?

What are you opinions on politics?

I abhor capitalism and globalization. I do not think its ok for people to make below minimum wage and I've learned through experience that wages far above minimum wage in the United States are not sufficient for living.

I remember watching the demonstrations in seattle in 1999 against the WTO on tv. It was a turning point in my awareness in regards to politics and economics and really gave me a huge motivational boost.

I consider myself an anarchist although I tend to distrust the phrase, 'I consider myself an anarchist'.

I am all for a creative boom in resistance and already see some positive signs that this is happening. There is a fairly large number of people in the United States that are opposed to capitalism yet there is so little organization within our local communities.

I see groups like the philly orchard project ( http://www.phillyorchards.org/ ) and it really makes me feel as though the political and economic playing field could be evened up rather quickly.

apathy maybe

21st November 2008, 19:38

I hope I don't get your hopes up. I was just asking those questions to get the ball rolling. I'm not in the CC, and thus don't have any say in whether you are unrestricted or not.

Good luck.

Killfacer

25th November 2008, 16:13

This is why i complained when rasconcliva (or however you spell it) got unrestricted; 2 weeks later and i still haven't had so much as a message.

25th November 2008, 16:26

This is why i complained when rasconcliva (or however you spell it) got unrestricted; 2 weeks later and i still haven't had so much as a message.

Just be patient!

Pirate turtle the 11th

25th November 2008, 17:25

This is why i complained when rasconcliva (or however you spell it) got unrestricted; 2 weeks later and i still haven't had so much as a message.

Congrats on the un-restriction.

25th November 2008, 17:28

Patient brings results!:rolleyes:Just a little tip from now on!
And welcome in the main board!;)

Fuserg9:star:

freakazoid

25th November 2008, 18:57

Congrats, :D

Plagueround

25th November 2008, 19:10

This is why i complained when rasconcliva (or however you spell it) got unrestricted; 2 weeks later and i still haven't had so much as a message.

Stop whining or it's back to the slammer with you! :lol:

Killfacer

25th November 2008, 19:31

Hooray, im freeeeee!

I want to thank my family, i want to thank god and the academy for this great honour.

On a more serious note i want to apologise for how much of a dick i were when i first joined.

Qwerty Dvorak

25th November 2008, 19:45

Sometimes.
Can you ellaborate on this? Some social democrats are not restricted?

danyboy27

25th November 2008, 21:04

Can you ellaborate on this? Some social democrats are not restricted?

well, its depend how low profile you are.

i am qhat the other consider a social democrat and i am unrestricted...

but if you been a dick, posted in the learning session has your first post:
you know, capitalism and socialism can work!
you would probably end up restricted.

not being restricted is a science, somehow.

Bud Struggle

25th November 2008, 21:12

Jazzratt

25th November 2008, 23:14

Can you ellaborate on this? Some social democrats are not restricted?

Social democrats tend to get a lot of unwarranted sympathy in restriction polls. That is what I meant by the comment.

Rascolnikova

28th November 2008, 15:57

On a more serious note i want to apologise for how much of a dick i were when i first joined.

forgiven. ;)

Lamanov

28th November 2008, 16:28

first of all i didnt say that all serbs are frustrated chetniks,i say that moust of them are frustrated and that shown up during proclaiming the kosovo independency as you saw himself on pictures i put it here and pictures dont lie,second i didnt say that all albanians are mob but i say that albanian mob will use the kosovo independency for own interests which is the fact,and third unity of BiH i use in the matter to explain that should be good way to avoid the holokaust over people who lived in BiH during 91-95 but frustrated "bosnian serbs" how they called himself are choose to kill,rape and destroy HUMANS who are not been "bosnian serbs",so do you got a picture now or you will continue to insulting me that i am nationalist?

Obviously, you're a nationalist.

danyboy27

28th November 2008, 16:53

since when being a nationalist is an insult?

i know that some of them are dick but i think being nationalist dosnt mean you are against communism.

Killfacer

28th November 2008, 17:08

forgiven. ;)

You weren't even here you bastard.

Rascolnikova

28th November 2008, 17:14

You weren't even here you bastard.

:)

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 17:24

You weren't even here you bastard.

Actually Killfacer, you never were a bastard--you were (and are) just yourself, not a professional Marxist or theoretician...just someone with a good intellect who had an interest in making the world a better place.

It's RevLeft that owes you an apology. There's a reason that the Western world is going through the greatest economic crisis in the last 80 years and there is exactly NO Communist response.

The Revolution just happened--the world went from free market Capitalist to Social Democrat and the Communists didn't even notice.

You reap what you sew.

Rascolnikova

28th November 2008, 17:49

To be clear, that comment was pointed at me, not revleft. . . and I was here when he was whining about my unrestriction. I've taken enough shit for my views on abortion without having my psychological state analyzed and criticized for it too. . . so I'll take the apologies I can get, even if they don't belong to me. I am a commie after all. :)

Ironically, though I'm probably one of the left you'd most likely support, I'm not sure I can agree at all with your analysis of the financial situation. I don't understand international currency markets as well as I'd like to, but it looks like the present reforms are giving more and more power to IMF and Worldbank--and I really don't see how that could possibly be good. I'm not even sure if I see how it necessarily leads to social democracy, unless by social democracy we mean something I don't think is better than "free market capitalism*" as we've been practicing it.

Should "the left" have been doing something different? Clearly. I can only say that in real life, the leftists I associate with aren't making the mistakes you accuse the left of here, at all. . . and that we're her now, so the question is what to do next.

*doesn't exist, but I'll just leave it to mean whatever vague thing you meant by it

Hit The North

28th November 2008, 18:16

since when being a nationalist is an insult?

i know that some of them are dick but i think being nationalist dosnt mean you are against communism.

Nation states are bourgeois constructions whereas communism can only be internationalist.

"Workers of all countries unite..."

Hit The North

28th November 2008, 18:20

The Revolution just happened--the world went from free market Capitalist to Social Democrat and the Communists didn't even notice.

:lol: That's not a revolution, it's governments backtracking because capitalism has screwed up again.

Holden Caulfield

28th November 2008, 18:55

remember: you don't have to be in the OI to have been unfairly restricted

Bud Struggle

28th November 2008, 20:09

:lol: That's not a revolution, it's governments backtracking because capitalism has screwed up again.

It could have been a Revolution if you guys were paying attention. It seems as if you Communists needed the Capitalist to roll over and play dead.

Without firing a shot the Social Democrats have won this one. And what does Marx say about Communists taking power away from Social Democrats?

Blissfully Nothing. It's now a post-Marxist world. :)

Hit The North

29th November 2008, 07:03

It could have been a Revolution if you guys were paying attention. :) What a bizarre claim. You've obviously not been paying attention to our politics. It's not down to a small (if we're truthful, tiny) minority of communists to summon the revolution out of thin air; it can only be achieved through the will and action of the working class.

It seems as if you Communists needed the Capitalist to roll over and play dead. It would be nice if they did - and not necessarily playing at it, either.

Without firing a shot the Social Democrats have won this one.
They've won nothing - except perhaps the grudging thanks of capitalism for once again leaping to the rescue of its decrepit system - and whether they've even successfully done that is still very much an open question.

And what does Marx say about Communists taking power away from Social Democrats? May I refer you to a history book. Marx would have to have been a time traveller to have an opinion on this. The question wouldn't have made any sense to him given that the term social democracy was coined towards the end of his life, was initially adopted by adherents of his ideas, and had not yet achieved any kind of political power.

Plagueround

30th November 2008, 21:52

It could have been a Revolution if you guys were paying attention. It seems as if you Communists needed the Capitalist to roll over and play dead.

Without firing a shot the Social Democrats have won this one. And what does Marx say about Communists taking power away from Social Democrats?

Blissfully Nothing. It's now a post-Marxist world. :)

Wait, I'm sorry? Are you claiming that Obama and friends are social democrats?

Bud Struggle

30th November 2008, 21:57

Wait, I'm sorry? Are you claiming that Obama and friends are social democrats?

Not exactly. I'm sort of claiming social Democracy is in flux and it is beginning to emerge as something totally different than it was before.

But I'm also trying to obey the hose rules and not aruge too much in inappropriate areas. (I know--I start the stuff off.:rolleyes:)

Plagueround

30th November 2008, 22:01

Not exactly. I'm sort of claiming social Democracy is in flux and it is beginning to emerge as something totally different than it was before.

But I'm also trying to obey the hose rules and not aruge too much in inappropriate areas. (I know--I start the stuff off.:rolleyes:)

I think social democracy is starting to emerge in people's minds, but the political parties are lagging behind that. Interesting that a movement that was thought to be dead and buried is now making a come back in your mind. ;)

Bud Struggle

1st December 2008, 01:18

I think social democracy is starting to emerge in people's minds, but the political parties are lagging behind that. Interesting that a movement that was thought to be dead and buried is now making a come back in your mind. ;)

I see the bail out as essentially a socialist thing--I lost ownership in a bit of Lehman Bros and I got ownership in a bit of other Wall street Firms. AND SO DID EVERYONE ELSE. If you could have seen how tight a community that was and now it's owned by EVERYBODY. That's a change. I think it is the beginning of a trend townard Socialism--it ISN'T something written about in Das Kapital--but from the inside world of private money--it was a HUGE step.

So that's the "Social" part. And one of the bigger failings of Communism/Marxism is not to see the trend toward Democracy--and I know it's not perfect by a longshot but it has become the definive STANDARD in the real world over who is "free" and who is "not." Marxism was foolish--even for only propaganda terms, to turn it's back on democracy.

So, from all that I get Social Democracy. I don't have your "faith" in Marx or the proletariat or anyone else. What I see is a "new" "improved" brand of Social Democracy on the move--all top down.

What can I say--that's just the way I see it. :cool:

Plagueround

1st December 2008, 01:48

I see the bail out as essentially a socialist thing--I lost ownership in a bit of Lehman Bros and I got ownership in a bit of other Wall street Firms. AND SO DID EVERYONE ELSE. If you could have seen how tight a community that was and now it's owned by EVERYBODY. That's a change. I think it is the beginning of a trend townard Socialism--it ISN'T something written about in Das Kapital--but from the inside world of private money--it was a HUGE step.

Funny, I have yet to see any cash or stocks. I must have done something wrong.

So that's the "Social" part.The burden of those losses being on my child's head when he gets older?

And one of the bigger failings of Communism/Marxism is not to see the trend toward Democracy--and I know it's not perfect by a longshot but it has become the definive STANDARD in the real world over who is "free" and who is "not." Marxism was foolish--even for only propaganda terms, to turn it's back on democracy.Marxism never turned its back on democracy. Leninism perhaps, but not Marxism.

So, from all that I get Social Democracy. I don't have your "faith" in Marx or the proletariat or anyone else.You seem to confuse my understanding of sociology and rejection of non- teleological structural functionalism as faith. Marxism is a foundation and not a blueprint (but then, I /facepalm'd on the last thread where you and JimmyJazz rejected the notion of social sciences).

What I see is a "new" "improved" brand of Social Democracy on the move--all top down.Social Democracy will not be a historical end-game. I give it a few more years before everything either settles or crumbles and we get our next Ronald Reagan to try and take back whatever tiny breadcrumbs people get handed...well, people in first world countries at least, since Social Dems don't seem to give a damn about anyone but their own.

PigmerikanMao

11th December 2008, 01:52

Nation states are bourgeois constructions whereas communism can only be internationalist.

Oh my god, you're restricting people for nationalism too? What about the idea of the united front? -That requires national cooperation but continues to be used as a communist tactic when fighting outside powers. Is revleft going to start restricting anarchists too because they don't worship the mods? Jesus! :laugh:

Rascolnikova

11th December 2008, 04:09

Oh my god, you're restricting people for nationalism too? What about the idea of the united front?

I find this statement to be pleasantly ironic. :)

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th December 2008, 09:58

I think that I have a right to be unrestricted. Before immediately dismissing the notion, please hear me out.

First, I know longer hold the view that the capitalism which we have today is the best system possible for mankind, nor should it be regarded as such y any means. Progress in every sector must always be at the forefront of our thoughts, and is the only true purpose of society in any form. We must develop rapidly in this time of rapid growth or we shall bring great calamities upon our posterity, if no ourselves.

I am no longer a capitalist, nor am I defined by such petty labels of economic theory. I am a Transhumanist. I believe that homo sapiens should be rendered obsolete. The inherent flaws carried from one generation to the next drastically limits the potential of the one organ which matters: the brain. The creation of a new type of man is required, and we are getting ever closer to his or her birth. One who, with genetic perfection, along wih advanced medicine and nanotechnology may be able to flirt with immortality, all while in a seemingly endless prime.

The problem, of course, arises when considering the fate of we human beings. On an earlier post, I remarked that the dwindling resources this planet has left, after the enormous amounts we've squandered, may require the new species to seek a final solution. However, I do no believe this will be he case. The new species will live far longer than we will, we will simply have to end childbirth amongst ourselves, and yet even this may not be necessary if science keeps accelarating (and with a new, better species running things it certainly will) may allow them to keep humans as pets, and for entertainment and amusement.

Now, I do realize that I'm soon to be a member of the American military. But please uderstand that this was not because of what I'm fighting for but about what I'm getting out of it. In fact, I specifically joined the branch I did o avoid the whole fighting part. I really had no other way of getting to college.

I'm pro-choice, feel that marriage is a religious practice and therefore the govt should only recognize civil-unions and allow any number of consenting adults of any combination of sexes to enter into this agreement, calling it 'marriage' or whatever they like on their own.

I don't think the US has a right to have a military presence in 160 out of 190 or so countries in the world unless they agree to have them there. I believe that every nation has a right to the government the people so choose, unless a group of those people feel that they want to split off and form there own nation and it's not a black-and-white issue and it's this whole grey area and, well, those issues I deal with on an individual basis.

Lastly, almost all of the arguments I've made down here were from a devils advocate perspective. I don't believe most of the shit I've said, I've just wanted to debate from the opposition's chair, even when that entails arguing for practices I don't agree with in order to prove a point or attack a soft spot in their argument.

*edit: Oh yeah, the Obama thing. I don't see him as an end-all, a prophet, a working class hero, or the messiah. But I don't get the logic behind not voting and I think he'll be a lot better at averting the apocalypse then John McCain. Europeans, please don't judge. You don't know what it's like to only have two relevant parties that both suck.

So please consider it, and thank you.

RedAnarchist

12th December 2008, 10:35

*edit: Oh yeah, the Obama thing. I don't see him as an end-all, a prophet, a working class hero, or the messiah. But I don't get the logic behind not voting and I think he'll be a lot better at averting the apocalypse then John McCain. Europeans, please don't judge. You don't know what it's like to only have two relevant parties that both suck.

Yeah, we do.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th December 2008, 10:46

Yeah, we do.

In Britain, really?

I take it it's the Conservatives and the Labour, and the Cons are the real anti-union pro-privitization types while the Labour went along with W's war. That sucks. My apologies.

But you guys have to ahve a least some more excitement on the political level that we have here [the american south]. Aren't there secessionists and unionists and all that? That's kind of exciting.edit, I meant this for Scotland not Northern Ireland, which i wouldn't describe as 'exciting,' though it's definitely perceived pretty romantically in he US.

Plagueround

12th December 2008, 11:14

Lastly, almost all of the arguments I've made down here were from a devils advocate perspective. I don't believe most of the shit I've said, I've just wanted to debate from the opposition's chair, even when that entails arguing for practices I don't agree with in order to prove a point or attack a soft spot in their argument.

While this whole thing strikes me as a joke, I'll indulge you on this one. This is why you have struck me as a troll for sometime. You don't seem to actually believe anything you say, you're just here "for the lulz". With the myriad of websites on the internet that are dedicated to such things, the fact that you constantly post one liners and jokes to remind all us revlefters how stupid we are is precisely the reason I treat you like an inferior troll and respond to other OIers more seriously.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th December 2008, 21:55

While this whole thing strikes me as a joke, I'll indulge you on this one. This is why you have struck me as a troll for sometime. You don't seem to actually believe anything you say, you're just here "for the lulz". With the myriad of websites on the internet that are dedicated to such things, the fact that you constantly post one liners and jokes to remind all us revlefters how stupid we are is precisely the reason I treat you like an inferior troll and respond to other OIers more seriously.

You don't know what it's like to be restricted, and immediately have to answer questions like "Are you for revolution today? Or are you a racist?" Most people don't even bother, they merely assume me to be a Reaganist fascist. And as this is the case, I'll debate them as such. Does this mean I've shown disrespect to posts which didn't deserve it? Yes, of course I have.

As for transhumanism, I think that anyone who's done the math should come to the same conclusion.

Bud Struggle

12th December 2008, 22:03

Yeah, we do.

Obama is my Co-Pilot.

Seriously though--give Abe's post some thought.

Killfacer

12th December 2008, 22:20

Seriously though--give Abe's post some thought.

I agree with this. Although the fact that he has "sexy capitalist bastard" under his name might give people the wrong idea.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

12th December 2008, 22:54

I agree with this. Although the fact that he has "sexy capitalist bastard" under his name might give people the wrong idea.

It's a joke! I am sexy, but I'm not a bastard :D

Good point though, I'll change it.

danyboy27

13th December 2008, 00:46

unrestrict r3gacky

i think he answome.

PigmerikanMao

13th December 2008, 01:01

Yes, I also believe R3Gacky is answome (whatever the hell that means), but he was restricted for a reason- he obviously needs to repent to the mods for being wrong before his rights are given back to him.

danyboy27

13th December 2008, 01:19

Bud Struggle

13th December 2008, 01:34

unrestrict r3gacky

i think he answome.

I agree! He's also a pain in the ass trying to discuss all this technical Marxist stuff in OI with us pissants. :D

Jazzratt

13th December 2008, 14:09

unrestrict r3gacky

i think he answome.

People get unrestricted for being leftists not "answome". Fuck off.

danyboy27

13th December 2008, 15:18

People get unrestricted for being leftists not "answome". Fuck off.

okay but, if he a leftist does that count too?

PigmerikanMao

13th December 2008, 15:20

Quick question, why am I here again? :laugh:

BobKKKindle$

13th December 2008, 15:26

Qwerty Dvorak

14th December 2008, 02:38

What about me?

PigmerikanMao

14th December 2008, 04:27

PigmerikanMao, weren't you here for the same reason - opposing the right to choose? If you have not changed your position and still believe that women are not entitled to abortion at any stage of pregnancy then you should not expect to be un-restricted. If you have changed your position, then you need to stop leaping to the defence of sexists (as in the recent discussion on abortion) and encourage serious discussion. If you do this, I'd be happy to call for your un-restriction.

I never opposed the right to choose- I said women should be able to choose without restriction, I simply had my own individual moral holdings. I wouldn't get an abortion- but I wouldn't stop people that wanted one.
:laugh:

Rascolnikova

14th December 2008, 14:36

I never opposed the right to choose- I said women should be able to choose without restriction, I simply had my own individual moral holdings. I wouldn't get an abortion- but I wouldn't stop people that wanted one.
:laugh:

If you wanted to assemble a list of your abortion referencing posts, that would make it way easy for us. :)

AtteroDominatus

15th December 2008, 18:45

apparently i was restricted, too *thumbsdown*
because apparently, not believing in abortion, despite not thinking that any laws against it would work, makes me less of a leftist. niice. Not against woman's rights, just for life. where's the loveee?

RGacky3

15th December 2008, 18:51

R3Gacky is evidently not a leftist, as he opposes the right to choose and calls for legal restrictions on abortion - despite the fact that he is apparently an anarchist, and anarchists are generally opposed to laws. The FAQ clearly states that opposing the right to choose leads to restriction.

I never called for legal restrictions on abortion, I said, in the begining, and always maintained, I have a moral objection too it, consierding I consider a fetus a human, but I also am against a legal code, and laws, so I don't call for any legal restrictions, but my moral objection to it, but I consider it murder, that in mind I don't call for 'legal restrictions' on murder either, because in an Anarchist society it would be pretty much be the common consensus that murder is unacceptable, I would hope the same would be for abortion but I can't say.

If you choose to restrict me for that, thats teh CCs desicion, but don't twist my words.

Yes, I also believe R3Gacky is answome (whatever the hell that means), but he was restricted for a reason- he obviously needs to repent to the mods for being wrong before his rights are given back to him.

I'm sorry ... repent? What are you a priest?

If I change my position on Abortion, I will change it, only if I am convinced I am wrong before, but I would never require ANYONE to repent on their previosly held convictions, thats rediculous. Your convictions are your convictions.

Decolonize The Left

15th December 2008, 19:24

Rascolnikova

15th December 2008, 19:24

where's the loveee?

Clearly not here. :)

There are some incidences where women's rights definitely conflict with being "for life." This isn't just about having to carry a baby for nine months, it's also about the wider implications of a society that moralistically requires that women be held brutally accountable by their own biology while the men in question are scarcely held accountable at all.

I'm guessing the bit of your view that we all find most disturbing is that the reason you wouldn't make abortion illegal is practical, rather than ethical; I believe there's a strong implication in the board policy that abortion needs, for moral/ethical reasons, to be available. I personally am only actually offended by your stance on abortion with regards to rape victims, which literally turns my stomach. From what I've read, you didn't even suggest that the pain and suffering to rape victims was a regrettable side effect of protecting so many innocent lives: you essentially said, "it's only 2% of abortion cases, quit whining about it, it doesn't matter."

It does matter. All of it matters.

This is why I--though anti-abortion (but more pro-choice) myself--am comfortable excluding you from most of the main forum, though I wish it were done much more graciously. Either you don't see the costs to women and society that are being bought at the price of these (mostly embryonic) lives, or you don't care. If you are unaware, hopefully in the space of debate you can become aware; if you don't care. . . well, hopefully we'll have lots of good flame wars. :)

I personally also feel that this stance does not make you any less of a leftist. However, as Zizek might say, "you are still a leftist; just not the sort of leftist we want to have anything to do with," which, while I don't agree with, I do have sympathy for. . . rather like some of your own views.

At any rate, I hope you will still enjoy the forum; feel free to pm me if there's anything I might be able to help you with.

Rascolnikova

15th December 2008, 19:30

I never called for legal restrictions on abortion, I said, in the begining, and always maintained, I have a moral objection too it, consierding I consider a fetus a human, but I also am against a legal code, and laws, so I don't call for any legal restrictions, but my moral objection to it, but I consider it murder, that in mind I don't call for 'legal restrictions' on murder either, because in an Anarchist society it would be pretty much be the common consensus that murder is unacceptable, I would hope the same would be for abortion but I can't say.

If you choose to restrict me for that, thats teh CCs desicion, but don't twist my words.

Yes. . . unfortunately, all sorts of shit gets said about people's views which may or may not represent them.

So, do you support availability for abortion?

I'm sorry ... repent? What are you a priest?

If I change my position on Abortion, I will change it, only if I am convinced I am wrong before, but I would never require ANYONE to repent on their previosly held convictions, thats rediculous. Your convictions are your convictions.

I believe that was a dig at the attitude of the mods.

BTW, August, I feel that some cases of abortion are murder and wrong, and I'd be interested in seeing a reasonable argument saying a nine and a half month old unborn fetus isn't a person but a nine and a half month old born one is--other than the arbitrary "first breath" line. I'd much appreciate it if you'd post something of that sort over in the abortion thread; otherwise Jazzy will be after us for spamming. :)

RGacky3

15th December 2008, 19:31

riefly, the use of the word "murder" implies that a fetus is a person (which it isn't). And the use of the word "wrong" implies some sort of value-system which is most likely based on the belief that a fetus is a person (which it isn't).

I don't want to debate whether or not a fetus is a person, I've done it before many times here.

The position I hold on Abortion, is that a fetus is a person thus it is murder.

That being said, I am an Anarchist, and it is up to the common consensus as to what is considered appropriate or not, I would hope that it would be a common consensus to treat a fetus as it is, a person.

So to answer that question, I don't support access to abortion, I believe its murder. However what I don't support is an Entity that has the authorty to ban anything or enforce my or others moral code.

Sam_b

15th December 2008, 19:35

I don't support access to abortion

Thats enough for me to believe you should be kept restricted.

Killfacer

15th December 2008, 19:41

Just answer the question with yes or no.

Should it be legal, in our current political circumstances, for women to have abortions?

Pogue

15th December 2008, 19:43

Thats enough for me to believe you should be kept restricted.

I agree with Sam b

Rascolnikova

15th December 2008, 19:50

Thats enough for me to believe you should be kept restricted.

Yes, we get it, and I think so does he. That is the policy.

thanks for the response, rgacky.

RGacky3

15th December 2008, 19:52

Thats enough for me to believe you should be kept restricted.

Fair enough

Should it be legal, in our current political circumstances, for women to have abortions?

I don't really have an opinion on that, the same way I don't on minimum wages, I don't think the state should have that authority to begin with, or that it should exist.

Decolonize The Left

15th December 2008, 20:10

Thats enough for me to believe you should be kept restricted.

That's enough for the CC as well.

- August

AtteroDominatus

15th December 2008, 22:25

I personally am only actually offended by your stance on abortion with regards to rape victims, which literally turns my stomach. From what I've read, you didn't even suggest that the pain and suffering to rape victims was a regrettable side effect of protecting so many innocent lives: you essentially said, "it's only 2% of abortion cases, quit whining about it, it doesn't matter."

It does matter. All of it matters.

ohhh. =/
I didn't mean at all that I do not care about rape victims. I personally have a very close friend who was raped by a so called friend. I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who's had to been forced to participate in sexual actions without their consent.

I merely meant it's not a legitimate argument against abortion. Because, anywhere else i have discussed abortion, people try to use rape as an excuse. I would never be so callous against anyone who was he victim of any kind of suffering, especially people who were hurt and impregnated by such a manner. Granted, it did come off as a heartless knife towards anyone who has been. I didn't mean for it to seem that way. I'm just tired of people trying to use that as basis to their own arguments and i wanted to get that out of the way as soon as possible.

also, flaming never really accomplished anything useful :P

Also, I never hold men to not be included. They are also responsible, it takes two people. I have never said, nor will i ever, that women are solely responsible for pregnancy. I believe people should be responsible and that includes, without a doubt, the man who was part of the process.

As for making abortion illegal, it is ethical, to me. Practicality is one aspect. If it was made illegal, people would go back to back alley abortions, thus creating more death and pain overall. Even if it means lives are still lost, i would rather them be lsot then risk the lives of women at such unjust and rudimentary means

Also, i would like to think, in a communistic society, that women would not be looked down upon or thought less fo for having childrne, but regarded more ightly because they bring up the new lives in the world.

hope that clears things up, though i don't expect this to free my confines~

Decolonize The Left

15th December 2008, 22:32

I merely meant it's not a legitimate argument against abortion. Because, anywhere else i have discussed abortion, people try to use rape as an excuse. I would never be so callous against anyone who was he victim of any kind of suffering, especially people who were hurt and impregnated by such a manner. Granted, it did come off as a heartless knife towards anyone who has been. I didn't mean for it to seem that way. I'm just tired of people trying to use that as basis to their own arguments and i wanted to get that out of the way as soon as possible.

The issue of a woman being forced to conceive a child against her will is a perfectly good argument against strict pro-life positions which desire to outlaw abortion entirely.

- August

AtteroDominatus

15th December 2008, 22:35

The issue of a woman being forced to conceive a child against her will is a perfectly good argument against strict pro-life positions which desire to outlaw abortion entirely.

- August
*sighs* as said, I never wished to outlaw abortion, because i think it would hurt more in the long run. And i meant, it is not the best basis, because it's rare (though sad) so I don't think you can judge the case of an entire argument on a small percentage in relativity to the whole. I think if people don't want kids, they just shouldn't have sex, that's all. Sex is for pleasure, and there are so many other ways to get pleasure out of life without having the risk of bearing a child, or killing a life that you don't want

Decolonize The Left

15th December 2008, 23:08

*sighs* as said, I never wished to outlaw abortion, because i think it would hurt more in the long run. And i meant, it is not the best basis, because it's rare (though sad) so I don't think you can judge the case of an entire argument on a small percentage in relativity to the whole. I think if people don't want kids, they just shouldn't have sex, that's all. Sex is for pleasure, and there are so many other ways to get pleasure out of life without having the risk of bearing a child, or killing a life that you don't want

In the first place, I never claimed that you wished to outlaw abortion.

In the second place, the options are not: baby or abstinence. Yet this is how you have framed the situation. Are you opposed to contraceptives?

- August

RGacky3

15th December 2008, 23:59

I think if people don't want kids, they just shouldn't have sex, that's all. Sex is for pleasure, and there are so many other ways to get pleasure out of life without having the risk of bearing a child, or killing a life that you don't want

Listen, either you believe a fetus is a person, or you don't. If you do, then you must believe abortion is murder, if you don't, then I don't see what objection you'd have to it at all. Be a man for Gods sake, if you have convictions, stand by them.

GPDP

16th December 2008, 00:22

Be a man for Gods sake, if you have convictions, stand by them.

I believe Attero is a woman.

RGacky3

16th December 2008, 00:30

I believe Attero is a woman.

Be a Woman.

PigmerikanMao

16th December 2008, 00:43

I'm sorry ... repent? What are you a priest?

If I change my position on Abortion, I will change it, only if I am convinced I am wrong before, but I would never require ANYONE to repent on their previosly held convictions, thats rediculous. Your convictions are your convictions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=sarcasm&search=search :laugh:

AtteroDominatus

16th December 2008, 03:26

In the first place, I never claimed that you wished to outlaw abortion.

In the second place, the options are not: baby or abstinence. Yet this is how you have framed the situation. Are you opposed to contraceptives?

- August
i am not opposed to contraceptives. however i believe if they fail ther person should have the child.

Also, to whom it may concern, i am sticking by my thoughts.

I believe abortion is murder, I believe in contraceptives, i believe the man and woman should take responsibility, I believe fetuses are living children, i do not believe in making abortion illegal on the grounds it will lead to even more deaths, i believe killing is wrong, i understand there is dispute on when a fetus is 'alive' so i understand other viewpoints, i do not think being against abortion means being opposed to women having rights, i believe women should not be regarded as less for carrying children, and i believe in a soceity that will no longer require abortion once women are not looked down upon for having children, no matter the age.

i don't think i forgot anything. long story short, i believe abortion is killign and wrong, though i don't wish it to be illegal because that causes more pain. Thign sbeing illegal don't stop people from doing things. they elad to mroe extreme measures. And, i also understand how people regard abortion as right, because they believe it a woman;s property and her right. though, this does not change the fact i veiw it as immoral and wrong.

Sam_b

16th December 2008, 04:20

So you would view a woman who has an abortion as immoral?

not_of_this_world

16th December 2008, 04:25

TheCultofAbeLincoln

16th December 2008, 04:48

Nobody has a restriction to ***** about well, I do. I want to carry a concealed weapon. I like feel of steel on my hip as a former corrections officer. I had to carry in Michigan when I retired as I was on a hit list of former convicts and now in NY state I am denied and that is fucked up. Every GD cop gets one but I do not and that sucks!:mad:

That does suck. I don't like gun law enforcement, all they do (generally) is punish people who were not using them for a crime, and if they do use them, chances are those charges will be dropped in favor of the ones involving actually using the weapon. If I am going to commit a murder, am I going to care that the weapon I'm using is illegal?

Anyway, You could always come to TX! :lol:

Black Dagger

16th December 2008, 06:02

Also, I never hold men to not be included. They are also responsible, it takes two people. I have never said, nor will i ever, that women are solely responsible for pregnancy.

Sorry, but you're lying through your teeth here - and have done so consistently since you arrived. Constantly shifting your argument, all the while claiming 'i never said that' - well you did and you made it quite clear:

Who gave her the right to kill the baby? Oh right, her body, or some shit like that. Guess what! it's her own damn fault if she gets pregnant. No more of this wishy washy bullshit where people blame contraception not working, ro rape cases (because only 2% of rape cases yield children, a national census on the US, at least. and in such a case, i still do not agree with abortion, but that's not the point) becaue it's the woman's fault [if she gets pregnant]! She consented to sex

After you made these statements - where you don't mention the role of men at all - i called you on this, and in a fashion typical of your flip-flop style you said:

Well, the woman had the choice to have sex, so in a way it's her fault. and i never said the father was exempt from responsibility, either! It's like people keep assumign I'm blaming women, when I'm kinda blaming both the people. I jsut thought people knew that? Guess not, sorry. either way, I think both people should be responsible for it. I jsut don't think the woman shoudl abort a child, because she and whoever she was with were aware of what could happen.

Of course 'we don't just know that' - because you never said that - you just blamed women in a long post, repeating the phrase 'it's the woman's fault!' over and over again. But of course you get called on it and then it's all, 'oh well i never said that men didn't have any responsibility' - well yes you never said they don't - you just didn't mention their responsibility at all, whilst also hammering the 'womans fault' argument home several times :rolleyes:

Decolonize The Left

16th December 2008, 06:34

i am not opposed to contraceptives. however i believe if they fail ther person should have the child.

Also, to whom it may concern, i am sticking by my thoughts.

I believe abortion is murder, I believe in contraceptives, i believe the man and woman should take responsibility, I believe fetuses are living children, i do not believe in making abortion illegal on the grounds it will lead to even more deaths, i believe killing is wrong, i understand there is dispute on when a fetus is 'alive' so i understand other viewpoints, i do not think being against abortion means being opposed to women having rights, i believe women should not be regarded as less for carrying children, and i believe in a soceity that will no longer require abortion once women are not looked down upon for having children, no matter the age.

i don't think i forgot anything.

You did forget something, namely, the will of women. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, for whatever reason, who are you to tell her to give birth?

You say that you're all for equality.
You say that it's equal responsibility.
You say that you are opposed to killing.

But you kill the autonomy of women.
You kill their decision making ability by denying them the opportunity to make a decision.
You deny their life by denying their humanity - their ability to choose.

- August

Rascolnikova

16th December 2008, 08:09

ohhh. =/
I didn't mean at all that I do not care about rape victims. I personally have a very close friend who was raped by a so called friend. I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who's had to been forced to participate in sexual actions without their consent.

I merely meant it's not a legitimate argument against abortion. Because, anywhere else i have discussed abortion, people try to use rape as an excuse. I would never be so callous against anyone who was he victim of any kind of suffering, especially people who were hurt and impregnated by such a manner. Granted, it did come off as a heartless knife towards anyone who has been. I didn't mean for it to seem that way. I'm just tired of people trying to use that as basis to their own arguments and i wanted to get that out of the way as soon as possible.

also, flaming never really accomplished anything useful :P

It's the argument for abortion (which is what I think you intended to say) that got us roe v. wade. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1271391&postcount=8)

also, flaming done well is fun. :lol:

AtteroDominatus

16th December 2008, 12:05

@Black: Well it is her fault, isn't it? Not her fault if the contraceptive fails, but her fault if she consented to sex and is now pregnant as a result. It's hard to voice this into words because I'm not always the best at explaining, but lesse. I think the women is responsible for the child once she gets pregnant (hence the rant of blaming women) but i don't think the father can just prance away, either. I hate that things like this happen in society. It happens in high schools a lot, and even in colleges. Kid gets pregnant and then the father mysteriously dissapears because he doesn't want to grab hold and do what he should do. Granted, i do think it's awful on the mother, but i don't think she should get an abortion, either, because there are options such as adoptions later on (yes, i do know that adoption centers are over crowded =/)

@August: I see what you mean, but despite that, i still see the human as a life, and that does not change my moral veiws on the subject at hand, despite my obvious hatred that i see to be denying women their rights. Regardless, i still feel it is not soemthign that shoudl have to happen, but obviously it does and will continue, no matter what i feel.

Rascolnikova

16th December 2008, 12:10

@Black: Well it is her fault, isn't it? Not her fault if the contraceptive fails, but her fault if she consented to sex and is now pregnant as a result. It's hard to voice this into words because I'm not always the best at explaining, but lesse. I think the women is responsible for the child once she gets pregnant (hence the rant of blaming women) but i don't think the father can just prance away, either. I hate that things like this happen in society. It happens in high schools a lot, and even in colleges. Kid gets pregnant and then the father mysteriously dissapears because he doesn't want to grab hold and do what he should do. Granted, i do think it's awful on the mother, but i don't think she should get an abortion, either, because there are options such as adoptions later on (yes, i do know that adoption centers are over crowded =/)

Not just in schools; it happens everywhere.

I would be most interested in hearing your response to the Roe v. Wade argument, over in the abortion thread?

AtteroDominatus

16th December 2008, 12:37

So you would view a woman who has an abortion as immoral?
i will never think less of a woman because her getting an abortion, despite my view that it is murder. Because i accept that people do not think the way i do. In a crude term it's more of 'hate the sin, not the sinner'.

Sam_b

16th December 2008, 20:51

'hate the sin, not the sinner'.

So whoever does it is the sinner now, is it?

Give me strength.

AtteroDominatus

16th December 2008, 21:35

everyone in the word is a sinner, from my beliefs. so that makes them no worse than any other person.

PigmerikanMao

17th December 2008, 01:02

So now you're arguing that all sits are of equal merit (or lack thereof)? I'm not sure what you're getting at on a moral standpoint- if all sinners are equally bad, is Hitler just as moral as Mother Teressa? Hitler killed millions of children, Teressa only killed, like, nine.

AtteroDominatus

17th December 2008, 02:04

i foresaw this argument. i don't feel lie arguing about it though, and throwing this entire place off topic. Just saying all people make mistakes, and through their view they are not. some sins are worse than others, but it is about perspective, and i cannot tell everyone to see from mine. to answer you, though, no. Not arguing that, just saying i see them as no less of people than you and me.

PigmerikanMao

17th December 2008, 03:22

Very well, I won't press the argument or try and attack you over petty semantics, but it would be interesting to hear your point of view on this should you ever care to expound on it. :)

Decolonize The Left

18th December 2008, 06:46

@August: I see what you mean, but despite that, i still see the human as a life, and that does not change my moral veiws on the subject at hand, despite my obvious hatred that i see to be denying women their rights. Regardless, i still feel it is not soemthign that shoudl have to happen, but obviously it does and will continue, no matter what i feel.

But this cannot possibly be your argument. Do you eat vegetables? You're aware that they were living before they were killed right? What about meat? Do have lumber in your house? Trees are alive.

Your point cannot be that you morally oppose killing. Please get your argument straight - you oppose murder, do you not?

- August

AtteroDominatus

18th December 2008, 12:27

yes, sorry, i get the terms interchanged sometimes.

TheDifferenceEngine

21st December 2008, 19:07

Why am I restricted??

RedAnarchist

21st December 2008, 19:10

Why am I restricted??

The reason given in the Admins Actions thread is that you are a cop apologist. It appears to be connected to comments you made in the following thread - http://www.revleft.com/vb/urgent-genova-paris-t96330/index.html?highlight=TheDifferenceEngine

TheDifferenceEngine

21st December 2008, 19:38

The reason given in the Admins Actions thread is that you are a cop apologist. It appears to be connected to comments you made in the following thread - http://www.revleft.com/vb/urgent-genova-paris-t96330/index.html?highlight=TheDifferenceEngine

Yeah... I changed my mind on that in five seconds and didn't really look back.

Qwerty Dvorak

21st December 2008, 20:52

The reason given in the Admins Actions thread is that you are a cop apologist. It appears to be connected to comments you made in the following thread - http://www.revleft.com/vb/urgent-genova-paris-t96330/index.html?highlight=TheDifferenceEngine
That's one of the most ridiculous reasons for restricting someone I've ever seen.

Killfacer

21st December 2008, 20:57

That's one of the most ridiculous reasons for restricting someone I've ever seen.

I second that motion.

Bud Struggle

21st December 2008, 22:42

That's one of the most ridiculous reasons for restricting someone I've ever seen.

You may have noticed the RevLeft Politburo is pretty touchy these days when it comes to any criticism of the riots Greece. I've disagreed with the RevLeft consensus and have been called a troll a moron and had the death of my kid been wished on me. Harsh even by usual OI standards.

No problem for me--but I feel bad for those poor comrades subject to Stalinist Purges who disagree even slightly with the party line.

Ah, but what is Communism without a Terror now and again? :)

Black Sheep

21st December 2008, 23:01

The reason given in the Admins Actions thread is that you are a cop apologist.
Not a cop apologist, but an apologist for a murderer, who, PLUS , was a cop.
And you wonder why you got restricted!?:mad:

RedAnarchist

22nd December 2008, 20:53

I've trashed the prison ***** rubbish from this thread. Stay on topic, please.:)

Plagueround

22nd December 2008, 20:57

Yeah... I changed my mind on that in five seconds and didn't really look back.

Despite what the trolls will tell you, it is possible to get out of the OI. If you would like to clarify or share your thoughts, I'd be willing to do what I can to get you unrestricted.

Plagueround

22nd December 2008, 21:06

You may have noticed the RevLeft Politburo is pretty touchy these days when it comes to any criticism of the riots Greece. I've disagreed with the RevLeft consensus and have been called a troll a moron and had the death of my kid been wished on me. Harsh even by usual OI standards.

I don't think anything you said on the situation was more than uninformed taunts and baiting. You dismissed the entire thing as a bunch of kids looking for an excuse to break stuff, but you expect anything but the same kind of comments in return? Even then, some of us were nice about it.

No problem for me--but I feel bad for those poor comrades subject to Stalinist Purges who disagree even slightly with the party line.

While I don't know that anyone who sides with cops is a comrade, way to dramatize the act of restriction. Any other forum just bans people, but once again you've characterized the rather unique and, quite frankly, generous restriction as a sign of communist purges. That said, I think TDE wasn't restrict worthy.

Ah, but what is Communism without a Terror now and again? :)

I don't know, the cappies have never stopped terrorizing us. Or, is that not what you meant?

Bud Struggle

22nd December 2008, 21:32

Plague--my post (above) was a rather stupid one. I tried to delete it this AM, but either something was wrong with the site or my computer.

Forget I wrote it. Thanks for your reply, though.

(Interesting--all my posts from this morning are missing.)

DÃ³chas

22nd December 2008, 21:38

(Interesting--all my posts from this morning are missing.)

ye the site crashed or something but it seems ok now :)

Bud Struggle

22nd December 2008, 21:52

ye the site crashed or something but it seems ok now :)

Yea, when I apologize it always crashes sites. :lol:

DÃ³chas

22nd December 2008, 21:54

Yea, when I apologize it always crashes sites. :lol:

ha ha dont make it a habit!! :lol:

Qwerty Dvorak

22nd December 2008, 22:05

Not a cop apologist, but an apologist for a murderer, who, PLUS , was a cop.
And you wonder why you got restricted!?:mad:
So? Anarchists and socialists apologize for murder all the time. Murder is nothing particularly repugnant to the far left. It really was just because your man was a cop.

22nd December 2008, 22:13

So? Anarchists and socialists apologize for murder all the time. Murder is nothing particularly repugnant to the far left. It really was just because your man was a cop.

fuck off... simple as that!

Qwerty Dvorak

22nd December 2008, 22:38

That's a valid point...?

RGacky3

23rd December 2008, 01:32

fuck off... simple as that!

THIS is why people get restricted for rediculous things, Commie Club members simply have that attitude.

Its almost gotten to the point to where if you don't agree with them, its restriction, why? "Fuck off" thats why.

Decolonize The Left

23rd December 2008, 06:18

THIS is why people get restricted for rediculous things, Commie Club members simply have that attitude.

Its almost gotten to the point to where if you don't agree with them, its restriction, why? "Fuck off" thats why.

In the first place, how do you know the attitude of all CC members? You don't - but you don't mind pretending that you do and generalizing, do you?

In the second place, each restriction is dealt with on a case-by-case basis whereby a general vote is held and should the motion receive a majority "Yes," then that individual is restricted.

As Plagueround noted, this is a highly generous process as RevLeft is a leftist board and we could very well just ban all those who don't agree with leftism (like many other sites).

So if anyone has issues with their restriction they're welcome to raise objections in a coherent manner - but this sort of whining and generalizing just makes you look like a child and doesn't help whatever case you may be attempting to make...

- August

TheDifferenceEngine

23rd December 2008, 16:41

The cop is a dickhead, the kid's death is a tragedy, blah blah blah...

You gonna let me out now?

Jazzratt

23rd December 2008, 16:51

The cop is a dickhead, the kid's death is a tragedy, blah blah blah...

You gonna let me out now?

Well, after such a convincing post I don't see how we have a choice.

23rd December 2008, 17:12

The cop is a dickhead, the kid's death is a tragedy, blah blah blah...

You gonna let me out now?

ehmmm, NO