Right .Vs. Left in these forums... - Read...

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I joined this site thinking I'd find an intelligent group of people with similar politik to me debating issues. Also, of course, I thought I'd find an intelligent group of people with contrasting politik debating, along with a few idiotic right wing followers.

Well, apart from a few (Junichi, JustJoe, man in the red suit, canikickit, Dhul, harawameen, Larissa), all the leftists are coming out with the kind of stuff I was expecting from the idiotic right wingers I predicated I'd come across.

It saddens me to say that, in proportion, the intelligence of the right wingers is greater than that of the leftists on here. Idiots who are trying to be radical because they think it is cool are causing a great unbalance in terms of intelligence and debate, and it is in favour of the right wingers.

Think what you like about that, but it is the truth.

[Mazdak]

Ah, another one who sees our predicament.

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Most of the left people in this site will probably be bored 15 yr'olds who want to have a dig at america, whilst wavin a flag so they can be seen as a rebel.

like you sed, the only few people capable of grown-up debate, (junichi, larissa, etc)are a minority, and, in your bit about radicals, there was/is a stalinist called Mazdak who was great fun to talk the world with, think the powers banned him tho

[Just Joe]

spoke to soon there, SS.

i agree with SOM. while i agree with redstar2000 that its better kids come on here and shout fuck the USA than them come here and shout bomb Iraq, its still makes real debate hard.

what i've noticed is a fundamental lack of knowledge on theoretical Marxism. its not what i expected. there are too many threads on Iraq. we all know what the left wing position is on Iraq so why make more threads? i'm just going on now but you get the idea.

(Edited by Just Joe at 10:57 pm on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

lack of knowledge on theorectical marxism, this is the kind of thing i meant, sorry for being a bit blunt, and the iraq thing is precisely what is was on about with the rebel flag waving, not gonna quote myself, thatd be rather big headed.................

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Exactly. I started a post in THEORY about actual Marxist theory and nobody has replied yet! Check it out. Called something like Marxist State Theory

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

And, by the way, the names I mentioned weren't the only ones that I have found to posess intelligence. Just a few. I have probably forgotten one or two more. Umoja as well.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from Sovietsky Souyuz on 10:50 pm on Mar. 19, 2003


and, in your bit about radicals, there was/is a stalinist called Mazdak who was great fun to talk the world with, think the powers banned him tho



I know I didn't make it that clear, but I didn't mean that radicals weren't good in debate. Radicals who know what they're on about are great. Just those who want to sound radical because they think it's cool (because Che was) whilst not knowing shit.

[Ghost Writer]

It saddens me to say that, in proportion, the intelligence of the right wingers is greater than that of the leftists on here. Idiots who are trying to be radical because they think it is cool are causing a great unbalance in terms of intelligence and debate, and it is in favour of the right wingers.

Damn, even I am capable of admitting when a left-winger is right. Your statement shows some insight, and is 100% accurate.

[Felicia]

So, you've been here a little over a month and already you can assess all the leftists in the community?

Junichi, JustJoe, man in the red suit, canikickit, Dhul, harawameen, Larissa

Oh boy, there are a good number more..... redceltic, fires of history, peacceknicked, vox (no longer here, but he was one of the "better" ones).


I know I didn't make it that clear, but I didn't mean that radicals weren't good in debate. Radicals who know what they're on about are great. Just those who want to sound radical because they think it's cool (because Che was) whilst not knowing shit.
I'll agree with that on some degree, however, there aren't many people like that here. Who are "radical" because it's "cool". They don't usually stay around very long. But I don't really have much of a debate for you about this topic. You may just be speaking of tihs forum in particular :) But I will give credit where credit is due, the righties certainly know a lot.....but then again, there will be another to debate it and try and prove that it's false.......no, I don't really have a point with this, just rambling :)

[Ghost Writer]

Peacenicked? Hah!

[redstar2000]

Socialsmo, if you feel that right-wingers are more "intelligent" than left-wingers, why are you not back at the right-wing boards that you used to hang out in? (I'm assuming your comment came from first-hand knowledge, of course.)

It may come as some surprise to you, but many of us are quite familiar with the Marxist theory of the state...and actually don't require a sociology student to confirm that it's correct. If you started that thread to get a "pat on the butt" from the lefties, consider yourself "patted". But we have had some experience with your views in the past...the majority of which, in my view, are conservative or reactionary.

If you're now in the position of someone who is changing their entire outlook on things, that would be different, of course.

Yet your remark about "intelligence" among right-wingers suggests that your sympathies remain with the ruling class...which also, by the way, occasionally acknowledges that Marx was right about something or other.

Take yourself off, then, to those "intelligent right-wingers" and celebrate your collective superiority as long as you may. Have a good time while you can.

I would rather talk to a bunch of "dumb" kids who are just barely conscious of the idea that "to rebel is justified". They will learn.

You won't.

:cool:

[Felicia]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 8:35 pm on Mar. 19, 2003
Peacenicked? Hah!

tisk, tisk, shame on you, I liked the guy :biggrin: :-P

(Edited by felicia at 8:45 pm on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

Communism is about freedom or it is about nothing.

If communism being about freedom is P, and communism being about nothing is Q, the disjuctive argument follows:

P v Q
~P
-------
Q

As you can see, the facts do not support the claim that Marxism is about freedom. This is evidenced by Marx's own ten recommendations for the implementation of communism. By denying property, you are denying freedom. Therefore, P is false. Since the disjunct is being used in the exclusive sense, this makes Q true. Your argument can only lead to the conculsion the Marxism is about nothing. How does it feel to believe in nothing, Redstar2000?

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:52 am on Mar. 20, 2003)

[Eastside Revolt]

This thread is just plain rediculous.

[Exploited Class]

Only if you think Freedom is equal to property.

You can look it at as everybody owns all property or nobody owns any property.

And if owning property is equal to freedom then you would have to say that people with more property ownership is more free than people with little or no property.

[Umoja]

SoM, I actually am a "bored 15 year old" in essence.

I really don't see many people here as lacking arguments or even intelligence though. I just see them as people who can latch onto a single idea quite strongly. Me, I can't stick to a single idea long enough. When I first started to become interested in communism, I started to lose my zeal towards it pretty fast.

The right wingers here, now seem to know what they are doing. The problem is, no one here seems to be a soft-core right winger. Everyone of the right wingers seems to be the creme of the right winger crop. They all seem to have the republican/libreterian philosophy down to a science I've only seen better in one person, who I know personally.

Okay, carryone though.

[Ghost Writer]

Exploitedclass,

Do you mind telling me exactly how statism equates to increased property ownership for the general public? Can you provide oe incidence where communism has had such a result? If not, we must assume that Marxism is inherently flawed, and discard it onto the trash heap where it belongs.

[redstar2000]

Ghost Writer, since you assume, in common with the ruling class, that private property is at the core of "freedom", my logic appears flawed to you and it seems that I "believe" in nothing.

The core of proletarian freedom is freedom from wage-slavery...something quite different from anything you have ever thought of. Like one who lived in the anti-bellum American South, slavery is just "part of the air you breathe", no more to be questioned than the idea that summers are hot and winters are cold.

I can understand how you feel; you can no more comprehend what we Marxists are talking about than a blind man can comprehend color or a neo-puritan can comprehend pleasure. It's as alien to you as capitalism itself would have been to Charlemagne or William the Conquerer.

The failures of the first communist societies in the 20th century have occasioned much rejoicing in the ranks of capitalism...even though, outside of "Fortress America", you are on the defensive. For all that Marxism is "discredited", class struggle is increasing and your economies don't look too good, to put it mildly.

There are no short-term guarantees in history, of course, and it's certainly possible that capitalism could "enjoy" another century of existence.

But the quality of your discourse suggests that you know you are dead men pretending to still be alive...there is no joy or hope or promise in your existence, simply a gritty determination to hold on to your wealth and power as long as you can, no matter what barbarisms you must resort to.

Like the old Confederacy, you fight well...but in a cause that is rightfully doomed.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:49 pm on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Palmares]

If the leftists on this site are ignorant as you say SOM, why don't you try to educate them. I am not afraid to say I am probably one of the less knowledgable of the vast people on this site. Thus, I am willing to accept any 'education' that is given to me.

But hey, for an ignorant lefty, I know a fair bit about Religion.

[Charlie]

As for me, I'm a bored 14 -year-old, and I admit I'm not quite an expert on communist theory yet. I visit this site mainly as a learning tool, and through the wondrous debates that go on here I've learnt alot, so I owe much of my leftist education to the more intellegent members of this forum, and I have a great respect for many of the members here. I also don't intend to agree with you for the motives of appearing modest or wise. No matter how well a cappie can defend his case, anyone who has passionatly chosen the path of socialism has already earned more respect from me than any cappie could get.

I may too be one of such less-knowledgable leftists, but as Alberto Knox once said, "Wisest is he who knows he does not know."

[Palmares]

Quote: from Charlie on 11:51 am on Mar. 20, 2003
As for me, I'm a bored 14 -year-old, and I admit I'm not quite an expert on communist theory yet. I visit this site mainly as a learning tool, and through the wondrous debates that go on here I've learnt alot, so I owe much of my leftist education to the more intellegent members of this forum, and I have a great respect for many of the members here. I also don't intend to agree with you for the motives of appearing modest or wise. No matter how well a cappie can defend his case, anyone who has passionatly chosen the path of socialism has already earned more respect from me than any cappie could get.

I may too be one of such less-knowledgable leftists, but as Alberto Knox once said, "Wisest is he who knows he does not know."

I have learnt alot from this site too. Though, I wish to learn much more. As long as people aren't too dogmatic about their opinions (or facts) this can become a great place for learning.

I guess I am bored, but I'm 17 actually. Pretty old compared to alot of people on here.

The best place to learn would be Q & A. What do people think about have some sort of education there?

[RedCeltic]

In my point of view I look on che-lives as a "learning board"

Let me explain:

I’m a plumber by trade. (Although currently an anthropology student.) From my experience, there are two different kinds of plumbing shops. There are some shops that I’ve worked in where the boss is only concerned with making money and only hires helpers to take the burden off the plumber. There are other shops I have worked in however, that hire helpers to be trained as plumbers and encourage plumbers to take the time to explain things to their helpers, rather than just the helper being there to hand him tools.

Well, Malte has said himself on several occasions that che-lives was founded to encourage people to learn about socialism. I personally saw “Chit Chat” as a conflict with this as most people ended up only posting in there. (That’s why it’s temporarily shut down.)

Is che-lives full of teenyboppers who haven’t read Das Kapital backwards and forwards? Well yes, Das Kapital is in three volumes and isn’t the easiest of read for a 32 year old as myself much less a 15 year old.

But, Socialism is not just for the intellectual and the academic, and one doesn’t learn it just by reading Marx but by living life with an open mind and heart, living and experiencing the cruelty of the capitalist system.

There are many classes in universities that study Marxism. It’s taken up by many economists, sociologists, and political scientists. Even the truest capitalist would tell you that nobody understood capitalism as well as Karl Marx. What they will not teach you in those classes is why we need socialism today in the 21’st century, and how we can implement the high ideals of great revolutionaries like Ernesto Che Guevara, in today’s world.

That’s what Che-Lives.com is for.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 1:10 am on Mar. 20, 2003
Exploitedclass,

Do you mind telling me exactly how statism equates to increased property ownership for the general public? Can you provide oe incidence where communism has had such a result? If not, we must assume that Marxism is inherently flawed, and discard it onto the trash heap where it belongs.


First off, my ability or inability to produce results fit your specified and narrowed expectations does not make any subject matter flawed or perfect.

As far as how does statism equate to more increased property ownership for the general public, well that should be obvious. Just as we now have public pools, public gold courses, public schools and public housing; insitutions by thier very nature open and owned by all. They are only limited by the budget granted to them by the upper ruling class and only considered bad when compared against the private institutions reserved for only the same upper ruling class.

If I am not rich enough for my own private pool, then the state creates a public one, increasing my property and freedom to do more. I can go to that public place unless I break the rules for that place.

The state would in essense own or a better way to put it control that public property. The state powered only by people, people no longer having more power over the state than others, as we see now with lobbiest, in acts this public land and utilizes it as the public wishes.

You may percieve this as you no longer having the freedom to own your own pool, but I see it as the freedom of everybody to have a choice to go swimming. If you do not like swimming in a general pool, then you are using your freedom of choice to not do so, but you still have the freedom of choice not granted to people now under capitalism. If the ruling upper class didn't see fit to give us a general pool, we would only have the freedom to want the things the upperclass has.

These public institutions in a communist society, are only limited by the amount of resources given or withheld by the people, not the upper class.

Since communism by its very definition is the people in control of the means of production, and everything so far existing on this earth that called itself communist was a small minority in control of the people and production, communism has yet to exist. A person punching you in the face calling themselves a pacifist is not a pacifist, nor are those small authoritorians communist.

The failures of others do not make a theory a failure, it is the failure of the people.

[praxis1966]

Ghost: Don't use Aristotlian logic around me. It is fundamentally flawed. For example:

P-->Q
P
Q
In other words the argument would go something like this: If the animal has two or more legs, then it is a cat. I have two legs, therefore I am a cat.

We both know I am not a cat. Cat's have no thumbs and therefore can't type. My argument was sound, but my premises were inaccurate. Therefore, conformity or nonconformity to Aristotle's idea of logic is no basis for making a value judgement about said argument.

In my humble opinion, the criterion for judging an argument should be the accuracy of premises, cohesion, and relationship to an overall theme. Reduction of language into mathematical formulas is an oversimplification and should be avoided.

So there. Some of us socialists do know a thing or two about a thing or two.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 10:28 pm on Mar. 19, 2003

It saddens me to say that, in proportion, the intelligence of the right wingers is greater than that of the leftists on here.
Think what you like about that, but it is the truth.


Ok, Well I'll say that it is not.

BY and large the rightists here seem to be just as wordy, noisy, and deliberately uninformed as they are pretty much everywhere. They raise arguments which are dressed in reasonable language all right, but these are the same arguments that have been knocked down 50-100 times before, of course people are bored refuting them.

Nor are these arguments usually about analysing consequences, they are at least 80% about simply asserting things about socialism and communism which are untrue to start with. It is very much easier to issue a well worded statement negating something (perticularly if you dont bother overmuch if parts of it conflict with what you know to be true) than it is to explain and this is what they trade on.

Notice that this section is called opposing ideology. To you see much exposition of those ideologies ? Nope you dont, what you see is attacks on socialism. Lets see our right wing buddies explain their position and have it subjected to criticism and see how intelligent they look then. Chances are you wont see it because I've lost count of the number of times I personally have asked one of them to do this only to be deafened by the silence that resulted.

There are Gung ho posers from the left of course, but there are far more vandals, with nothing really to say but a big dictionary of tired phrases, from the right.

I'd also say that the left in general suffers from having too mnay intellectual pontificators like me and not enough passion. WE need gung ho types committed to action. When I grew up in the UK socialist were a physical force to be reckoned with, the solidarity of the unions meant that rights were not just trampled on and in those days Neo Nazis walked softly for fear not of a sharp argument but a sharp smack round the head. To me the defeat of the Miners was the turning point and its taking a long time to regroup.

It would be nice to think that reasoned argument alone will win the day. But it wont, the threat of force and fear of consequences is absolutely essentila to making those sitting at the top of the class pyramid take notice. Without it they will constantly distort and ignore popular opinion (If you doubt that just think about what has just happened. A supposedly socialist PM has just completely and utterly ignored the will of 80% + of the people of this country in favour of supporting the most pro right government in the world).

This site is a breath of fresh air to me. keep it up guys.

(Edited by sc4r at 9:47 am on Mar. 20, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 12:36 am on Mar. 20, 2003
Socialsmo, if you feel that right-wingers are more "intelligent" than left-wingers, why are you not back at the right-wing boards that you used to hang out in? (I'm assuming your comment came from first-hand knowledge, of course.)

It may come as some surprise to you, but many of us are quite familiar with the Marxist theory of the state...and actually don't require a sociology student to confirm that it's correct. If you started that thread to get a "pat on the butt" from the lefties, consider yourself "patted". But we have had some experience with your views in the past...the majority of which, in my view, are conservative or reactionary.

If you're now in the position of someone who is changing their entire outlook on things, that would be different, of course.

Yet your remark about "intelligence" among right-wingers suggests that your sympathies remain with the ruling class...which also, by the way, occasionally acknowledges that Marx was right about something or other.

Take yourself off, then, to those "intelligent right-wingers" and celebrate your collective superiority as long as you may. Have a good time while you can.

I would rather talk to a bunch of "dumb" kids who are just barely conscious of the idea that "to rebel is justified". They will learn.

You won't.

:cool:


Straying from the point a bit.

And your bit about me just wanting a "pat on the back"....no, I wanted an intelligent debate on something other than Iraq.

[Pete]

Then start one.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I've started a few which I think are interesting, and clearly others do to.

Debates which require intelligence on more than just what you hear in the news about Saddam Hussein and anti-war protests.

[Pete]

There are many, although most have died down with America's foolishness. You just have to look for them. Insulting all but 5 or 6 members of the community is not a good way to get a willing debate partner though. I have refrained from commenting until now, because I have nothing to say. I figured that you could have your opinions and find debates to enter.

[Invader Zim]

Socialsmo o Muerte some of the people on this forum are the most informed people you are likely to talk to. You may not agree with there idiology but that does not affect the fact that they are a clever bunch.

redstar2000 for example i dont agree with on a lot of stuff, but you are not going to find a person who has not got a PHD in 20th Century history who knows more about communist history.

Moskitto, knows more about biology and chemistry than you would believe.

Red Celtic also is a very informed individual, as are most of the mods.

Guerilla Radio knows loads about music.

Smoking Frog 2 is also is very well informed.

So now after alienating half the regular posters do you really think that any one will have a decent debate with you?

[mentalbunny]

I'd just like to add my little contribution:

I don't care about theory, it's not going to get the Ethiopians fed, is it now? It's not going to stop bombs falling and corporations swindling the world for profits, is it? I want action, I want the leaders of the world to get a slap in the face and realise they have to clean up their act, I want hope and debating what marx said all those years ago seems pretty irrelevant right now.

You can call me a "bored teenager" if you want, go ahead, but I'm not bored, I'm just getting started. I don't read leftist literature, for me it isn't essential, or even important and right now I don't have access to it so I survive without it. I'm a leftist because of ethics, I believe that it is better to be a leftist (but not authoritarian) than a right-winger.

Anyway, I'm stupid so what does what I say matter?!!!

[Smoking Frog II]

Smoking Frog 2 is also is very well informed.

So now after alienating half the regular posters do you really think that any one will have a decent debate with you?


[b.a.r.a.t.r.f]

I'm not so much a regular anymore, If only i had lemon in water...

(Edited by Smoking Frog II at 10:05 pm on Mar. 20, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

There are a substantial number of people here of exceptional intelligence. All forums have a very diverse range of intelligence in their users. I would suggest that this forum is not of a low quality in that respect. People who you may consider to have poor debating skills or very simplistic views are still susceptible to being educated. People of this nature are not in such a mass that the debate here is ruined.

There are many intelligent members of these forums that you have not listed, there have been many interesting discussions here.

[mentalbunny]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 10:09 pm on Mar. 20, 2003
There are a substantial number of people here of exceptional intelligence. All forums have a very diverse range of intelligence in their users. I would suggest that this forum is not of a low quality in that respect. People who you may consider to have poor debating skills or very simplistic views are still susceptible to being educated. People of this nature are not in such a mass that the debate here is ruined.

There are many intelligent members of these forums that you have not listed, there have been many interesting discussions here.

Well said, you're my new best friend!

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 10:18 pm on Mar. 20, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 10:09 pm on Mar. 20, 2003
There are a substantial number of people here of exceptional intelligence. All forums have a very diverse range of intelligence in their users. I would suggest that this forum is not of a low quality in that respect. People who you may consider to have poor debating skills or very simplistic views are still susceptible to being educated. People of this nature are not in such a mass that the debate here is ruined.

There are many intelligent members of these forums that you have not listed, there have been many interesting discussions here.

Well said, you're my new best friend!

I agree with what you said yourself to a large extent, it shows that you are extremely open-minded, and exceptionally capable of creative debate.

I would suggest that you might not want me to be your freind let alone your new best friend.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Why are people making posts saying "So and So" is intelligent, and so is "so and so" so you were wrong....

I clearly stated that the names I mentioned weren't the only ones I thought were intelligent. After all, I didn't even mention Chairman Mao and he is probably the most intelligent on the whole site.

[Smoking Frog II]

Okay then smartass, i challenge you to a duel.

How are you so big, two star? Newbie?

[Pete]

CHOCOBO KILLER!

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 10:57 am on Mar. 21, 2003
Okay then smartass, i challenge you to a duel.

How are you so big, two star? Newbie?


:agrees with SM2:

Socialsmo o Muerte if you think we are all so stupid and below you then i suggest you leave us all in are state of ignorance and join another forum.

mentalbunny i agree theory is useless. Its only for the Marx lover. Not that Marx is at all important to modern communism or socilaism. As im sure the evidently mentaly superia individuals such as Socialsmo o Muerte have gathered.

[Pete]

Not at all theory is marxist. Not all theory is useless. You can combine your beliefs (theory) with praticality (politics) to do something worth while. But beneath it all you need to hold beliefs.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I did not claim to be any more intelligent than any of you lot. Although I do claim to be more intelligent than you if you think I said that because it clearly means you cannot read properly.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

And, Smoking Frog, what has me being relatively new to this poll got to do with how intelligent I am?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 4:11 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
I did not claim to be any more intelligent than any of you lot. Although I do claim to be more intelligent than you if you think I said that because it clearly means you cannot read properly.

I can read just fine i just chose to misinterprit what you said.

+ I dont really care what you think... so you can think im stupid if you want no skin off my nose.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 9:58 pm on Mar. 20, 2003
I'd just like to add my little contribution:

I don't care about theory, it's not going to get the Ethiopians fed, is it now? It's not going to stop bombs falling and corporations swindling the world for profits, is it? I want action, I want the leaders of the world to get a slap in the face and realise they have to clean up their act, I want hope and debating what marx said all those years ago seems pretty irrelevant right now.

You can call me a "bored teenager" if you want, go ahead, but I'm not bored, I'm just getting started. I don't read leftist literature, for me it isn't essential, or even important and right now I don't have access to it so I survive without it. I'm a leftist because of ethics, I believe that it is better to be a leftist (but not authoritarian) than a right-winger.

Anyway, I'm stupid so what does what I say matter?!!!


thats all good. raw ideals are good. especially in youngsters. but it is always better to compliment it with theory. if not, youre liable to get burned by right wingers who have there shit together.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 11:54 pm on Mar. 20, 2003
Why are people making posts saying "So and So" is intelligent, and so is "so and so" so you were wrong....

I clearly stated that the names I mentioned weren't the only ones I thought were intelligent. After all, I didn't even mention Chairman Mao and he is probably the most intelligent on the whole site.


I am certain you are in a minority with that particular opinion.

I don't think I would be mistaken to say that most of us agree with your points Socialsmo o Meurte, but that we disagree with your assertion that the points you made were of great gravity. sc4r demonstrates this view:

'There are Gung ho posers from the left of course, but' -sc4r

In additions, the comments of mentalbunny are valid in arguing that some people may not have distinctive knowledge of political theory, but can still contribute to a debate and also welcome criticism.

It is refreshing to see a reasonable analysis of this forum such as you gave. Your comments are extremely well substantiated for the reason that certain members in the past have left, most notably Nateddi and vox for the reasons you stated.

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from AK47 on 2:17 pm on Mar. 21, 2003

Quote: from Smoking Frog II on 10:57 am on Mar. 21, 2003
Okay then smartass, i challenge you to a duel.

How are you so big, two star? Newbie?


:agrees with SM2:

Socialsmo o Muerte if you think we are all so stupid and below you then i suggest you leave us all in are state of ignorance and join another forum.

mentalbunny i agree theory is useless. Its only for the Marx lover. Not that Marx is at all important to modern communism or socilaism. As im sure the evidently mentaly superia individuals such as Socialsmo o Muerte have gathered.


to AK47: Erm, it's sort of like sf2, but everyone makes that mistake, don't worry bout it.

to Socialsmo o Muerte: You said
"And, Smoking Frog, what has me being relatively new to this poll got to do with how intelligent I am?"

I never said you were dumb, i said you were smart as in "smart-ass" Also, it is not a poll, it is a message board. A poll is something on some message boards where you answer a question based on your opinion and a score dynamic (or otherwise) from all voters is collected. So, you could say a poll is a message board survey. Also, the polls usually have something to do with the website. This is an indication you are not a s smart as you may seem.

You critisize others higher up than yourself, but you can't do better than them.

PS.] Crazypete: I don't even know what a chocobo is!

[Pete]

A bird that people ride in the Final Fantasy series. It was what your last avatar was shooting out of the sky.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I wasn't trying to be better than anyone.

I was pointing out that there hasnt been many FORUMS whereby the people posting were all making intelligent points. Infact, most were making unintelligent points

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 9:48 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
A bird that people ride in the Final Fantasy series. It was what your last avatar was shooting out of the sky.


yeah, I do know a chocobo, just kidding. I didn't know that irvine was firing one though. Like my new zell one?

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 9:50 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
I wasn't trying to be better than anyone.

I was pointing out that there hasnt been many FORUMS whereby the people posting were all making intelligent points. Infact, most were making unintelligent points

You see, you're doing it again. It should be "haven't" not "hasn't", plus there is an apostrophe, like this: '

"I wasn't trying to be better than anyone."
that's just great 'cause we're all equalls down here!

plus, you DO critisize others and you CAN'T do any better.

[Pete]

This is for chit chat....

I only know alot about the SNES games (including 5) and 10.

[Smoking Frog II]

All hail, King of the losers!

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 10:07 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
This is for chit chat....

I only know alot about the SNES games (including 5) and 10.


I'm about to start a final fantasy forum in chit chat. see you there.

[Pete]

Age of Empires 2!!!

Edit: Hey we are proving him right. *goes off and makes a Chit Chat thread*

(Edited by CrazyPete at 5:10 pm on Mar. 21, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Although I realise that punctuation and grammar are incorporated into what is called "intelligence", I feel that word processing skills are not as important as other things displayed by people on the forums...such as knowledge on the topic in question.

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 10:14 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
Although I realise that punctuation and grammar are incorporated into what is called "intelligence", I feel that word processing skills are not as important as other things displayed by people on the forums...such as knowledge on the topic in question.

A wide-range vocabulary and highly developed use of grammar create a good "first impression." This is especially important when applying for a job.

Oh, CP, my thread is up! check it out.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I am aware of that. However like I said, I don't think, in a forum such as this on an Internet website, good grammar is essential.

[Smoking Frog II]

Okay. if you are a cappie and are asked a debate by 2 lefties, and one says 'haster la victoria semper' while the other says this properly, who are you going to debate with if you want a challenge. Is it A, or B? Hmm, hard choice i think not.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Ok, point taken. I will now try my best to present my posts in the best way possible.

[ComradeJunichi]

I just found this thread right now :P Wow. My name was mentioned? You people are crazy! Haha, you guys think of me too greatly, I'm nothign close to intelligent and I don't know a lot either.

There are lots of intellectuals and intelligent people on this board, but along side them there are many people who are just being introduced. I remember when I first joined the board I asked one question in every single forum - I'm positive some of you members remember. :P

As for those who are intelligent the big three I would name would be:

Chairman Mao: Asia - more specifically North Korea

Cassius Clay: Europe (Eastern) - more specifically the Soviet Union

Thursday Night: Cuba

[Smoking Frog II]

Good Idea. Now people will begin to appreciate your existence in this community. Until we next meat, SF2.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Let us hope that feeling remains mutual.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Personally I think it all comes down to posting on what you know about. I am new, and do not yet know that much about theory. Hence I post primarily on History, which I do know about (if you remember the Cold War thread, Socialsmo o Muerte, we were in agreement). For the sake of high class discussions or debates I think we should all only discuss issues that we have some understanding of.

(Edited by Uhuru na Umoja at 11:07 pm on Mar. 21, 2003)

[IHP]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but Che-Lives is, I believe, primarialy a learning/debating site. Not just people who know alot about Marxist theory coming to argue. I knew very little when I started here in regards to the theory. BUt with great members such as vox, Peacce etc I learnt an absolute bundle. Although you might consider me to be a "bored teenager", I think your angst is misdirected and unjustified. There are certainly a few of the undesirable types, but it is easy enough to simply ignore their rediculous comments argue with types you mentioned as well as many others.

--IHP

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from Uhuru na Umoja on 11:05 pm on Mar. 21, 2003
Personally I think it all comes down to posting on what you know about. I am new, and do not yet know that much about theory. Hence I post primarily on History, which I do know about (if you remember the Cold War thread, Socialsmo o Muerte, we were in agreement). For the sake of high class discussions or debates I think we should all only discuss issues that we have some understanding of.

(Edited by Uhuru na Umoja at 11:07 pm on Mar. 21, 2003)


that would probably be wise, 'cause then we won't be on the run from the shoe police.

[Ghost Writer]

Don't use Aristotlian logic around me. It is fundamentally flawed. For example:

P-->Q
P
Q

In other words the argument would go something like this: If the animal has two or more legs, then it is a cat. I have two legs, therefore I am a cat.

We both know I am not a cat. Cat's have no thumbs and therefore can't type. My argument was sound, but my premises were inaccurate. Therefore, conformity or nonconformity to Aristotle's idea of logic is no basis for making a value judgement about said argument.

In my humble opinion, the criterion for judging an argument should be the accuracy of premises, cohesion, and relationship to an overall theme. Reduction of language into mathematical formulas is an oversimplification and should be avoided.

So there. Some of us socialists do know a thing or two about a thing or two.

The reason I used formal logic was to demonstrate the flaw in the premise that either socialism is about freedom, or it is about nothing. According to the truth of the initiate statement, communism being about freedom must be rejected in order to arrive at a conclusion that gives a sound argument. The argument that I gave you was not only valid, but it was sound.

The argument that you gave me:

"If the animal has two or more legs, then it is a cat. I have two legs, therefore I am a cat."

Is an entirely different argument. In fact, it is not sound, as you claim it is. It is valid, but not sound. According to your premises the argument holds as a valid argument, meaning the premises entail the conclusion. However, when we concern ourselves with the truth in the statements your argument fails to hold true.

If the animal has two or more legs, then it is a cat. Let's call that P. I have two or more legs should be called Q. You are a cat can be called C. Setting up the truth table we find:

P is False
Q is True
C is False

In order for an argument to be sound it must be both valid, and premises and conclusion must all be true. Since your 1st premise and your conclusion are false, your argument is unsound.

Where as, in the premise given to me, stating communism is either about freedom or nothing, the truth was implied by Redstar's (or whoever's) use of the quote as his signature. I granted the statement the truth originally applied to it my the originator of the quote, and carried out the argument to its logical conclusion.

Let's say that (P V Q) is true.
Because of the nature of the disjunct (exclusionary):
obviously, ~P (not P) is true,
thus Q is true.

Not only is the argument that I gave you valid, meaning the premises make the conclusion necessary, but it is also sound, because the premises and the conclusion are all true. That is if we assume the initial statement is true. Clearly, it is not wise for a follower of Marx to adhere to such a flawed premise, as it can be throw back in their face rather easily. That is the reason I made use of formal logic in this case.

It comes as no surprise to me that a Marxist would take issue with its use. From what I have discovered here, they place no value on the ability to think logically. Quite the opposite. It seems as if they appreciate crippled thinking, and utter nonsense to decent induction, or even deduction, every time.

Nothing is more laughable than somebody who claims formal logic is completely flawed, while typing on a computer and transmitting information by way of a network. Its true that formal logic has its limitations, however look at the many uses it does have. Without Boolean logic are computer systems would be completely useless.

Induction employs many of the same principles as deduction. The reason we use it lies in the inability to know the absolute truth about some of the statements we try to evaluate. This is also due to the fact that we use language that is rather vague. Formal logic does not deal we some of the problems built into our language very successfully. However, it is a very useful critical thinking tool, responsible for the fast pace of our information age.

Take home lesson:

"My argument was sound, but my premises were inaccurate. Therefore, conformity or nonconformity to Aristotle's idea of logic is no basis for making a value judgement about said argument."-Praxis

You contradict yourself here by saying your premises were inaccurate and your argument was sound. Your premises must be true for a sound argument.

Formal logic is very useful in evaluating arguments, as it is the precursor for inductive reasoning. Inductive logic and it's evaluation is heavily dependent on the basis of all logic, which is the field of deductive logic. Without it, we would have never progressed this far as a species.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 2:40 am on Mar. 23, 2003)

[Pete]

Ghost Writer, I am sure you had something intelligent to say, but I didn't understand a bit of it. But my mind is...wierd...right now. Head-clogged or so it feels.

I must agree with Uhuru na Umoja onhis point.

[sc4r]

Inductive logic and it's evaluation is heavily dependent on the basis of all logic, which is the field of deductive logic. Without it, we would have never progressed this far as a species.



"Socialism is about Freedom or it about nothing."

Well congrats you have taken 500 words to explain why a rhetorical statement is not formal logic.

Fucking fantastic achievement m8.

And no inductive logic is not dependent upon Deductive logic. In fact you can use deductive logic to prove that inductive logic proves nothing.

[Pete]

Tell me if I'm wrong on my definitions:

Deductive, a ball falls, therefore all objects fall

Inductive, I bet all objects fall, you drop a ball a pen an apple and a desk, and they all fall there fore all objects fall

[Smoking Frog II]

CrazyPete: Who the fuck would drop an apple on purpose? oir by accident. You PSYCHO. the shoe police are gonna get you! You gonna catch holy hell!

[sc4r]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 2:56 pm on Mar. 23, 2003
Tell me if I'm wrong on my definitions:

Deductive, a ball falls, therefore all objects fall

Inductive, I bet all objects fall, you drop a ball a pen an apple and a desk, and they all fall there fore all objects fall


No, the first is inductive.

Deductive would be :

All objects fall
All balls are objects
Therefore all balls fall.

[of course this example of deductive logic has false premises :-)]



(Edited by sc4r at 7:12 pm on Mar. 23, 2003)

[Smoking Frog II]

floaters are objects and they do not fall.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

What the fuck happened to this forum.

[Ghost Writer]

In fact you can use deductive logic to prove that inductive logic proves nothing.

Show me.


And no inductive logic is not dependent upon Deductive logic.

I believe I said, "induction employs many of the same principles as deduction", and "formal logic is very useful in evaluating arguments, as it is the precursor for inductive reasoning. Inductive logic and it's evaluation is heavily dependent on the basis of all logic, which is the field of deductive logic." In other words, the basis of inductive logic is deductive logic. The arguments are structured the same. However, the inference indicators are less absolute. For instance, instead of saying that the premises entail the conclusion, induction would say the premises make the conclusion more probable. The structure of the arguments are much the same, as are the rules for evaluating an inductive argument, although there are notable differences.

[sc4r]

Find out for yourself smartass. I'm not your research assistant. Its a very well known philosophical topic.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:04 am on Mar. 24, 2003)