Is Nazism the first step toward Socialism?

[bleedingheart]

Hi Comrades,:)

My friend and I were having a discussion the other day. He is of the view that unless there's uniformity of thought and action, socialism will NEVER succeed. This is somewhat true, considering socialism has to be a global rather than a national/local agenda. Which means, billions must follow the same culture, and so on.

In view of this, my friend made a startling suggestion: Nazism is the first step toward socialism. How? The Nazis wanted to create one uniform world, and socialism can only succeed if there's uniformity of thought.:) Do the math, and we'll realize that Nazism is a prerequisite for socialism.

This was my friend's reasoning. Needless to say, I am rather baffled, because on the one hand, Nazism is diametrically opposed to Socialism. But at the same time, the concept of uniformity goes well with Socialism.

What do comrades think?:)

[Comrade Looter]

I'm not too sure about this, because there are a number of ways to go about having uniformity, Nationalism is another option, and Nazism implies Fascism - and nobody want's fascism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He is of the view that unless there's uniformity of thought and action, socialism will NEVER succeed. This is somewhat true,

Uh, no.

[Decolonize The Left]

Hi Comrades,:)

My friend and I were having a discussion the other day. He is of the view that unless there's uniformity of thought and action, socialism will NEVER succeed. This is somewhat true, considering socialism has to be a global rather than a national/local agenda. Which means, billions must follow the same culture, and so on.

No, socialism (and communism) are economic theories - not sociocultural theories.


In view of this, my friend made a startling suggestion: Nazism is the first step toward socialism. How? The Nazis wanted to create one uniform world, and socialism can only succeed if there's uniformity of thought.:) Do the math, and we'll realize that Nazism is a prerequisite for socialism.

Socialism has nothing to do with "uniformity of thought." It has only to do with the economic distribution of goods and services, and that this be controlled by the workers themselves. That is all.


This was my friend's reasoning. Needless to say, I am rather baffled, because on the one hand, Nazism is diametrically opposed to Socialism. But at the same time, the concept of uniformity goes well with Socialism.

What do comrades think?:)

I think your friend is sorely confused about socialism, and most likely Nazism as well...

- August

[Socialist18]

Hi Comrades,:)

My friend and I were having a discussion the other day. He is of the view that unless there's uniformity of thought and action, socialism will NEVER succeed. This is somewhat true, considering socialism has to be a global rather than a national/local agenda. Which means, billions must follow the same culture, and so on.

In view of this, my friend made a startling suggestion: Nazism is the first step toward socialism. How? The Nazis wanted to create one uniform world, and socialism can only succeed if there's uniformity of thought.:) Do the math, and we'll realize that Nazism is a prerequisite for socialism.

This was my friend's reasoning. Needless to say, I am rather baffled, because on the one hand, Nazism is diametrically opposed to Socialism. But at the same time, the concept of uniformity goes well with Socialism.

What do comrades think?:)
Its not a prerequisite in my opinion, it has similarities to socialism because it is national socialism, nationalism and non Marxist socialism.
While national socialism and socialism share many characteristics they differ even more so, they are totally, besides the socialism economics part, opposed to one another.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I would suggest showing your friend around this forum sometime. You'll have a hard time finding another community that defends so many heterodox lifestyles and inclusive systems.

- Homosexuality, heterosexuality, pansexuality, non-sexuality, bisexuality, bi-curious - check. We have them all.
- Transexual? Welcome aboard.
- White? Black? Chinese? British? Green? Cool.
- Feminine male? Masculine woman? Whatever you want.
- Pee fetish? Just don't it on my shoes.
- Obscenities? Go for it.
- Dress how you want.
- Consume the drugs of your choice.
- If you're a woman, you have total rights to your body.
- Piracy? We call that free exchange.
- Buying your music? Hey, nothing wrong with supporting the artist
- A lot of RVers are supportive of lowering the voting age
- Likewise on the issue of freeing up sexual consent
- Likewise on direct democracy
- Practically all of us aim for a stateless society. 'Nuff said.

Even for the sore subject of religion most Leftists have shown a level of tolerance that can't be found on the Right. There's certainly a large and vocal anti-religious segment to RevLeft, but all of our polls translate into a majority supporting the "right" to practice your faith, and very little - if any socialist - would say it's not permissable to "think" Christ was god, or the milkman a prophet.

Upon reflection, I'm laughing at the idea we demand uniformity.

[COVARE]

oooh so socialists welcome immorality, is that it?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

oooh so socialists welcome immorality, is that it?
How uniformist! One man's immorality is another's saving grace. Although the closest thing on my list I can relate to immorality is peeing on your mate, and that's because I think sex time is better spent with other fluids. But that's just me.

[COVARE]

except for the issue on race, all the things you mentioned are immoral. and seriously you have to talk about sex here? what the heck....? get some decency, kid.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

except for the issue on race, all the things you mentioned are immoral. and seriously you have to talk about sex here? what the heck....? get some decency, kid.

Heh, kid.

I'm saddened to see that you have such a negative opinion about equality of the sexes, accepting different sexual preferences, allowing teenagers more choice in their sex lives, allocating the choice to do decide what comes out of your sex organs, and accepting that some people want to consume different drugs than you...











(... maybe for some sexual benefits).

[COVARE]

wow dude you dont have to write "sex" in such big letters. i know, i know. and i wont understand it all the same if it were a tad bit smaller. disgusting, disgusting, disgusting (what you're suggesting, that is)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Sorry. It's 2:30 in the morning and I'm in need of some mild entertainment to accompany my jobless weekend. ;)

[COVARE]

yeah because that's really entertaining right?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

wow dude you dont have to write "sex" in such big letters. i know, i know. and i wont understand it all the same if it were a tad bit smaller. disgusting, disgusting, disgusting (what you're suggesting, that is)

Disgusting for YOUR personal tastes. Not others and you need to learn that in this day and age infringing on others personal tastes when they are committing "victimless crimes" gets ya nose broken.


Oh hang on you just called homosexuality and womens rights and the right to do what i want with my willy disgusting its the norm round here to spurt abuse.


You are a worthless piece of shit who is only good for filling a coffin.

Rate my abuse out of 10 please.

[Plagueround]

except for the issue on race, all the things you mentioned are immoral. and seriously you have to talk about sex here? what the heck....? get some decency, kid.


“One is never so dangerous when one has no shame, than when one has grown too old to blush.” -Donatien Alphonse Francois De Sade

[Jazzratt]

except for the issue on race, all the things you mentioned are immoral. and seriously you have to talk about sex here? what the heck....? get some decency, kid.

This just in: Sex is part of life and society, there are many issues surrounding it including the oppression of certain sexes and sexualities. I find it far more "indecent" to ignore the issue.

Also, by condemning everything he mentioned (aside race) you have made the following claims and raised the following questions (to which I expect answers):


Homosexual, heterosexual, pansexualy, non-sexual, bisexual and bi-curious people are more immoral - what does that leave?
Transexuality is immoral - why?
Simply behaving in a way beyond the stereotypical behaviour expected of one's gender is immoral - What do you expect of men and women and why?

A sexual obsession with excreta is immoral - who are you to declare paraphilias immoral or immoral?
Being obscene is immoral - and why the flying dicks should that be? Especially if you're really fucking enraged?
Dressing how you want is immoral - how can our choice of the materials draped over our bodies for warmth or modesty be at all moral or immoral?
Consuming the drugs you want is immoral - which ones are immoral?
Women's bodily autonomy is immoral - women should have to submit to men? [Fuck you, you sexist prick, fuck you]
Both piracy and buying music is immoral - should, then, we not listen to any music at all?
Lowering the voting age is immoral - How does that work? I can understand believing it to be a bad idea, perhaps illogical [you'd be wrong, but that's neither here nor there], but immoral - you're nuts aren't you?
Lowering the age of consent is immoral - Lowering it where, for a start? [Assuming the US and other countries with an age of consent at 18, adjust ages as necessary] Do you truly believe that no one is mature and sexually developed at 17?!
Direct democracy is immoral - Same with lower voting age, it's really not a moral issue, so why make it one?
Stateless society is immoral - Are you fucking high?

Go on, defend your claims.

[Holden Caulfield]

Go on, defend your claims.
he cant, he is clearly wrong, and quite possibly a nazi himself pretending to be confused or trying to learn to try and convert us all... plus i think he uses the word 'comrade' suspiciously in his OP as if trying too hard to seem like a communist

[Killfacer]

he cant, he is clearly wrong, and quite possibly a nazi himself pretending to be confused or trying to learn to try and convert us all... plus i think he uses the word 'comrade' suspiciously in his OP as if trying too hard to seem like a communist


i think you may well be seeing enemies in the mist. Really? A facsist ploy to convert communists...

[danyboy27]

covare react like this mainly beccause there was no discussion at all with him, all the people here did so far was to push him, to stuck him in the corner and to beat him badly.

[Bud Struggle]

i think you may well be seeing enemies in the mist. Really? A facsist ploy to convert communists...

Agreed. It seems this kid is a on a learning curve--with the hitches and gaffs that come along the way. But if you really don't want him--please send him along to ConservCap.com :lol:

[RGacky3]

Socialism has NOTHING to do with uniformity, especailyl uniformity of thought. Thats something the Capitalist wants, because God forbid anyone in a Capitalist system looks at it from a wide perspective, that freaks them out.

[Bud Struggle]

Socialism has NOTHING to do with uniformity, especailyl uniformity of thought. Thats something the Capitalist wants, because God forbid anyone in a Capitalist system looks at it from a wide perspective, that freaks them out.

Well, comming from the perspective--as most Capitalist do--that Communist China and the SU were both "Communist" countries, one could easily get the idea that the dreary sameness of the Proletarian class of these countries is what one gets when one buys into Communism.

Such views aren't always the Capitalist's fault--Communism--or what passed itself off as Communism did a pretty good job for about 80 years of making itself look like a drab and dreary pair of old underwear.

[Annie K.]

What do you mean by "sameness" ?

[Bud Struggle]

What do you mean by "sameness" ?

The drab existance of everyday life in those societies.

[Forward Union]

except for the issue on race, all the things you mentioned are immoral. and seriously you have to talk about sex here? what the heck....? get some decency, kid.

What defines Morality? and why is it legitimate?

[Robert]

Socialism has NOTHING to do with uniformity, especailyl uniformity of thought.Oh, good, then we're not restricted anymore!

:laugh:

[pusher robot]

Socialism has NOTHING to do with uniformity, especailyl uniformity of thought. Thats something the Capitalist wants, because God forbid anyone in a Capitalist system looks at it from a wide perspective, that freaks them out.

Funny, because I for one seem to recall repeated declaration that socialism or communism can never work unless capitalism is completely eliminated and its supporters liquidated. So, which is it? Is this not true, and communism in one country can work? Or does communism really require ideological uniformity?

[Forward Union]

Oh, good, then we're not restricted anymore!

:laugh:

This forum isn't socialism. It's a discussion board. You are restricted because we want to focus the debate elsewhere, we don't want to have to discuss whether the foundations of our beliefs are valid in every thread, we want to discuss things that have progessed from that slightly. Hence this is a forum for Socialists, of course, we don't have to let you speak atall, it's a private forum essentially. But we recognise the importance of debate and have a forum that enshirnes your right to criticism.

[Forward Union]

Funny, because I for one seem to recall repeated declaration that socialism or communism can never work unless capitalism is completely eliminated and its supporters liquidated. So, which is it? Is this not true, and communism in one country can work? Or does communism really require ideological uniformity?

That's like saying "How can you be for freedom if you don't permit my freedom to own slaves?"

[pusher robot]

That's like saying "How can you be for freedom if you don't permit my freedom to own slaves?"

Please note that the 13th Amendment did not require the cooperation of the rest of the world to have its intended effect.

[Forward Union]

Please note that the 13th Amendment did not require the cooperation of the rest of the world to have its intended effect.

I don't know what the 13th Amendment is.

[pusher robot]

This forum isn't socialism. It's a discussion board. You are restricted because we want to focus the debate elsewhere, we don't want to have to discuss whether the foundations of our beliefs are valid in every thread, we want to discuss things that have progessed from that slightly. Hence this is a forum for Socialists, of course, we don't have to let you speak atall, it's a private forum essentially. But we recognise the importance of debate and have a forum that enshirnes your right to criticism.

All true, but I think it's fair to point out that this is a perfect microcosm of the kinds of reasons that private property exists. All of the exact same arguments apply to physical fora as well as internet ones, and yet when it comes to private property they are cavalierly dismissed as inconsequential.

[Forward Union]

All true, but I think it's fair to point out that this is a perfect microcosm of the kinds of reasons that private property exists. All of the exact same arguments apply to physical fora as well as internet ones, and yet when it comes to private property they are cavalierly dismissed as inconsequential.

Thats a false comparison, this forum is not neccisary to human survival where as private property is.

[pusher robot]

I don't know what the 13th Amendment is.

It's the amendment to the U.S. Constitution that specifically prohibits slavery. It was passed at the conclusion of the U.S. Civil War.

[communard resolution]

Hi Comrades

You mean Comrades as in "Genossen" or as in "Volksgenossen"?

Bleedingheart, why don't you come out of the closet and show yourself for who you are: a left-wing National Socialist, a 'National Revolutionary', a Strasserite, or some sort of Third Positionist. I'm not basing my impression on this one post, I've read several of your entries.

Your posts always follow the same pattern: "Hello Comrades", followed by a few seemingly 'innocent' questions (e.g. you're wondering whether Western cultures might be more capable of socialism than the ignorant subhuman masses in the Third World, or whether there might be some connection between immigration and rape), always decorated with tons of smileys to make your 'honest questions' look a bit cuter than they really are.

Now you're telling us about a friend who apparently claimed something about Nazism and Socialism to you. Why don't you just admit it: these are your thoughts, not some fabricated friend's. Your story and your fake naivite are so contrived it's disgusting.

People don't seem to realize what you're trying to do here, but to me it's bleeding obvious, and I find the way you're operating utterly dishonorable, regardless of your political views.

Dear TomK: No, the thought of a Nazi attempting to recruit among leftists is not as far-fetched as you think, especially when the Nazi in question hails from the left wing of the NS spectrum. There's a long historic tradition to this which goes back to the socialist/syndicalist roots of Italian Fascism as well as the left (later Strasserite) wing of the German NS party. Just like this poster, they usually try to find common ground first, then subtly push things further and further towards their ethnic agenda.

I'm really not the most paranoid leftist on here, but I'm pretty sure I know what this bleedingheart person is doing. Feel free to look at his posts in other threads, and maybe you'll agree.

[communard resolution]

he cant, he is clearly wrong, and quite possibly a nazi himself pretending to be confused or trying to learn to try and convert us all... plus i think he uses the word 'comrade' suspiciously in his OP as if trying too hard to seem like a communist

This.

[COVARE]

I just thought I should respond to Jazzratt and his immorality in order of his responses. 1. "what does that leave?" -the people who are moral, the way things used to be, in the 1950s, homosexuality and all that shit wasnt even considered normal. now it is? what' next- raping little children is considered "socially acceptable"? 2. "why?" - transexuality is immoral because people should not make me have to throw up, looking at those scum indeed makes me want to puke. if you're a guy, you're a guy. if you're a girl, you're a girl. dont make it any more complicated. 3. "What do you expect of men and women and why?" - i expect girls to do roles traditionally assigned to them. they should be able to get a job, however, but not if they are are having kids. as for men, they shouldn't go around acting gay and like a pussy. 4. "who are you to declare paraphilias immoral or immoral?" - it's disgusting. besides sex is only for reproduction. nothing more. 5. "and why the flying dicks should that be? Especially if you're really fucking enraged?" people are required to have some sense of deceny. 6. "how can our choice of the materials draped over our bodies for warmth or modesty be at all moral or immoral?" perhaps the choice to put as little material as possible would be considered immoral? people should not dress like sluts. 7. "which ones are immoral?" - the drugs that cause harm to others, the majority. 8. "women should have to submit to men?"- i never said that. however girls should not go out and have sex if they are not married, thus they should not have the "right" to killing their baby because of their stupidity. 8. "should, then, we not listen to any music at all?" - i obviously missed this one. ignore this. 9. "How does that work? I can understand believing it to be a bad idea, perhaps illogical [you'd be wrong, but that's neither here nor there], but immoral - you're nuts aren't you?" -you're right, this isn't a moral issue. i used the wrong word to describe it. 10. "Lowering it where, for a start? [Assuming the US and other countries with an age of consent at 18, adjust ages as necessary] Do you truly believe that no one is mature and sexually developed at 17?!"- 17 year olds should not be having sex. 11. "Same with lower voting age, it's really not a moral issue, so why make it one?" again, immoral is the right word to describe this. people should have more say in the election process rather than the crappy US system of "democracy", but there should still be representatives. 12. "Are you fucking high?" - i dont support anarchy, otherwise i would fear for my life.

[Bud Struggle]

This forum isn't socialism.

RevLeft isn't like Communism--it's more like a Degenerate Worker State. :lol:

^^^FYI: Joke.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

All true, but I think it's fair to point out that this is a perfect microcosm of the kinds of reasons that private property exists. All of the exact same arguments apply to physical fora as well as internet ones, and yet when it comes to private property they are cavalierly dismissed as inconsequential.

... Except communism is not opposed to control over personal possessions, only property that creates forced hierarchies. Having control over your own website is not the same thing as owning the resources necessary for the internet and computers to exist.

*Slaps Pusher in the forehead for making yet another erroneous remark.*

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I just thought I should respond to Jazzratt and his immorality in order of his responses. 1. "what does that leave?" -the people who are moral, the way things used to be, in the 1950s, homosexuality and all that shit wasnt even considered normal. now it is?


First of all you useless piece of shit. Homosexuility harms no one and i dont give a fuck what happend in the 1950 just because somthing used to be dont mean it should be. Your logic could be used be a racist nob to justify the slave trade.



what' next- raping little children is considered "socially acceptable"?

Rape lacks consent thats why its rape and wrong. I dont give a toss if people are gay or not and neither should anyone who isnt good for coffin filling alone.



2. "why?" - transexuality is immoral because people should not make me have to throw up, looking at those scum indeed makes me want to puke.

Should be bar ugly people from public because some of them are repulsive?



if you're a guy, you're a guy. if you're a girl, you're a girl. dont make it any more complicated.

Transexuals choice not yours.


3. "What do you expect of men and women and why?" - i expect girls to do roles traditionally assigned to them.

Theres that whole tradition argument again. Some people would say a black mans traditionaly assigned role is a slave. Tradition is mostly shite.



they should be able to get a job,

Oh how kind of you :rolleyes:


however, but not if they are are having kids.

Why? men can look after children as can schools etc


as for men, they shouldn't go around acting gay and like a pussy.

Why?


4. "who are you to declare paraphilias immoral or immoral?" - it's disgusting. besides sex is only for reproduction. nothing more.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Sex is fun -> there thats somthing else.



5. "and why the flying dicks should that be? Especially if you're really fucking enraged?" people are required to have some sense of deceny.

Required by worthless turds.


6. "how can our choice of the materials draped over our bodies for warmth or modesty be at all moral or immoral?" perhaps the choice to put as little material as possible would be considered immoral?

Morality differs from person to person.



people should not dress like sluts.

Why?



7. "which ones are immoral?" - the drugs that cause harm to others, the majority.

The majority of what?



8. "women should have to submit to men?"- i never said that. however girls should not go out and have sex if they are not married

Why?



, thus they should not have the "right" to killing their baby because of their stupidity.

Not waiting for some delusional tosser in a shitty hat to tell you when you can fuck is not stupid.



17 year olds should not be having sex.

Why not? At age thirteen kids feel sexual urges and as long as they get educated decently i dont give a fuck what they do.



i dont support anarchy, otherwise i would fear for my life

If you either did you would be a disgrace to the movement and have reason to fear for your life.


Go fill a grave.

[Bud Struggle]

... Except communism is not opposed to control over personal possessions, only property that creates forced hierarchies. Having control over your own website is not the same thing as owning the resources necessary for the internet and computers to exist.

So what about someone owning that website and it just happens to be e-Bay and they make a billion of so dollars off of it? No hierarchies that I could see.

Well slightly a bad example--at a billion dollars there probable is a corporation behind it to make it wor--but on a small scale, if I did all the work myself. Would that be allowed in Communism?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

o what about someone owning that website and it just happens to be e-Bay and they make a billion of so dollars off of it? No hierarchies that I could see.You could theoretically create an auctioning website, yes. You are also correct in your conclusion, Tom. eBay didn't become a billion dollar enterprise until they incorporated. However, even a year before the stocks went up the company got a grand load of assistance. eBay had many competitors in 1997, but like Yahoo a major investor corporation granted money so that it could put down the others. eBay received about $5 million in exchange for allowing Benchmark Capital to take in the revenue. :)


Well slightly a bad example--at a billion dollars there probable is a corporation behind it to make it wor--but on a small scale, if I did all the work myself. Would that be allowed in Communism?Yeah.

[Sentinel]

2. "why?" - transexuality is immoral because people should not make me have to throw up, looking at those scum indeed makes me want to puke. if you're a guy, you're a guy. if you're a girl, you're a girl. dont make it any more complicated. 3. "What do you expect of men and women and why?" - i expect girls to do roles traditionally assigned to them. they should be able to get a job, however, but not if they are are having kids. as for men, they shouldn't go around acting gay and like a pussy


COVARE, when you joined this forum you agreed to our guidelines. This means that you are not allowed to use discriminatory language, such as referring to homosexuals as 'pussies', calling transsexuals scum, etc.

I am issuing you a warning point, and you can be certain that you will be banned from our forums in the very near future unless you change both your tone and your language immediately. :mad:

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah.

You know, Gene--that makes a lot of sense. I, and those of my ilk, can indulge ourselves in our whims of entrepreneurship that are so dear to our hearts--and other can do the dictatorship of the proletariat as much as they want an there shouldn't be any problems.

One of the great weaknesses of Communism that I have seen is that it doesn't address the concept of: some people like to DO stuff--which the Capitalist system seems to address just fine.

That's why Soviet Commissars turned in to the BEST Capitalist pigs when given the chance. You need that outlet.

Thanks.

[GPDP]

I'm pretty sure COVARE is forward, who was banned not too long ago for advocating the mass murder of drug users. He said the exact same shit about the 1950's being some sort of moralistic paradise.

Would someone look into it and confirm my suspicions?

[Chapter 24]

bleedingheart and COVARE are obvious trolls, bleedingheart being a Nazi sympathizer/left-wing Nazi and COVARE a mysoginistic homophobe. Let's just ignore these two posters as they have nothing to offer to the board.

[danyboy27]

I'm pretty sure COVARE is forward, who was banned not too long ago for advocating the mass murder of drug users. He said the exact same shit about the 1950's being some sort of moralistic paradise.

Would someone look into it and confirm my suspicions?

i talked personally to both and its definitively not the same person at all.
FOWARD was acting like a angry little kid, covare is more mature in its dialogs and syntax. foward was naive, covare act arshly beccause he got the feeling of being attack, and i dont blame him for that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So what about someone owning that website and it just happens to be e-Bay and they make a billion of so dollars off of it? No hierarchies that I could see.

Well slightly a bad example--at a billion dollars there probable is a corporation behind it to make it wor--but on a small scale, if I did all the work myself. Would that be allowed in Communism?
Yes.

However, there would be no bank accounts under communism, and therefore no credit or debit cards, and therefore no way to make online payments. So yes, you can make your valuable website, but actually selling it might be rather difficult.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes.

However, there would be no bank accounts under communism, and therefore no credit or debit cards, and therefore no way to make online payments. So yes, you can make your valuable website, but actually selling it might be rather difficult.


But you understand you are now just taking the FUN out of doing business. Also----you might just be draining the fun out of life for a lot of people that love to collect baseball cards, or Barbie Dolls or Brass rings or plastic tea sets from the 1930s.

This is the best example of why e-Bay is a million times more in tune with the human psyche than RevLeft will ever be.

[Forward Union]

... Except communism is not opposed to control over personal possessions, only property that creates forced hierarchies. Having control over your own website is not the same thing as owning the resources necessary for the internet and computers to exist.

So what about someone owning that website and it just happens to be e-Bay and they make a billion of so dollars off of it? No hierarchies that I could see.

But what items are being sold on Ebay? and how did they come into being? and where did the money they are bought with come from?

Ebay couldnt exist outside of capitalism so its a moot point.

[Jazzratt]

I just thought I should respond to Jazzratt and his immorality in order of his responses.

Go on then.


1. "what does that leave?" -the people who are moral, the way things used to be, in the 1950s, homosexuality and all that shit wasnt even considered normal.

The problem is that the line you quoted included all orientations - including heterosexual. Why do you consider the ruling opinion of the 1950s moral? You've yet to present an actual reason.


now it is? what' next- raping little children is considered "socially acceptable"?

Want some more teflon on that slope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy)? What logical reason is there for people who support consensual sex between adults to support non consensual sex between an andult and a child?


2. "why?" - transexuality is immoral because people should not make me have to throw up,

That's a (fucking terrible) personal action, not a basis for a morality. Dumbfuck.


looking at those scum indeed makes me want to puke.

Quite the highly polished mirror you carry, to call anyone scum.


if you're a guy, you're a guy. if you're a girl, you're a girl. dont make it any more complicated.

That's the point. An FtM is a man just as an MtF is a woman.


3. "What do you expect of men and women and why?" - i expect girls to do roles traditionally assigned to them.

Assigned by whose tradition? What time's roles, in which culture is "traditional"?


they should be able to get a job, however, but not if they are are having kids.

It's probably more important that they have a job when they do have kids - those don't just feed themselves.


as for men, they shouldn't go around acting gay and like a pussy.

:lol: There's a pub around my way, I forget the name, it's got a reputation as a bear cave (look it up), I dare you to suggest that "acting gay" is at odds with "manly" behaviour - for example kicking seven shades of shit out of you. I'll personally pay your travel if you provide me with that slice of entertainment. But, seriously, what is wrong with a bloke exhibiting whatever fucking behaviour he feels like regardless of how you rate it on your "manliness" scale?


4. "who are you to declare paraphilias immoral or immoral?" - it's disgusting. besides sex is only for reproduction. nothing more.

Disgusting =/= immoral. As for sex being for reproduction the prostate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate) begs to differ. Oh, as do people who have had sex (it's really rather fun, you know).


5. "and why the flying dicks should that be? Especially if you're really fucking enraged?" people are required to have some sense of deceny.

That's a complete nonanswer, try again.


6. "how can our choice of the materials draped over our bodies for warmth or modesty be at all moral or immoral?" perhaps the choice to put as little material as possible would be considered immoral?

Why?


people should not dress like sluts.

People should not be forced to dress innapropriatly for the weather because of fashion and a constant message of attracting a partner, no, but I doubt this is what you mean.


7. "which ones are immoral?" - the drugs that cause harm to others, the majority.

Tobacco, cannabis, opium (smoked) and crack-cocaine are "the majority of drugs" now? Because those are the only ones that give off smoke or any other harmful chemicals.


8. "women should have to submit to men?"- i never said that. however girls should not go out and have sex if they are not married,

Yes they should.


thus they should not have the "right" to killing their baby because of their stupidity.

No one is killing any babies.


10. "Lowering it where, for a start? [Assuming the US and other countries with an age of consent at 18, adjust ages as necessary] Do you truly believe that no one is mature and sexually developed at 17?!"- 17 year olds should not be having sex.

Why, what harm is caused to them (actual physical harm)?


people should have more say in the election process rather than the crappy US system of "democracy", but there should still be representatives.

Why? What is immoral about having no representative. Especially since most representative systems give the representative the autonomy to vote against those they "represent".


i dont support anarchy, otherwise i would fear for my life.

The only reason I can think of you fearing for your life is if you spouted this bigotry outside, around normal people. But you should fear doing that now anyway.

[Pirate Utopian]

Bigoted tripe
http://www.incestbyproxy.com/images/banned.gif


Also about the original post, how can holocausts, institutional racism and other prejudice possibly lead to a society of equality?

[Bud Struggle]

But what items are being sold on Ebay? and how did they come into being? and where did the money they are bought with come from?

Ebay couldnt exist outside of capitalism so its a moot point.

Don't see it.

"Things" have intrinsic value. You might not value your great grandmother's hand knitted shall, others might. You might not value your 17th c Bureau--others migh bid it up to a million pounds.

Who's to say what things are worth.

That would be the "market!"

that's where Communism fails--thay don't take people's "hearts" into account.

[#FF0000]

1. "what does that leave?" -the people who are moral, the way things used to be, in the 1950s, homosexuality and all that shit wasnt even considered normal.

Yeah and before that a woman who bared her ankles was a hussy!

You sound like one of those "traditional" people who thinks the 50's were when America was at its peak and society was all well and good and everyone was happy. You poor deluded fool.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

But you understand you are now just taking the FUN out of doing business. Also----you might just be draining the fun out of life for a lot of people that love to collect baseball cards, or Barbie Dolls or Brass rings or plastic tea sets from the 1930s.

This is the best example of why e-Bay is a million times more in tune with the human psyche than RevLeft will ever be.

I don't see where Haderach says anything that would zap business of what it deserves. I'm actually ashamed to say you gave up too easily, Tom! Obviously under communism there wouldn't be "national currencies." Individuals in want of their own functional auctioning website would have to come up with mediums of exchange and not expect society as a whole to prop up a euro or greenback for their convenience, but you can try to find something that all sides find valuable.

Now you have to take into consideration why people would resort to an auctioning website when they can get most of their needs from the socialized economy. The goods being offered would have to be unique, or close to it. Your medium of exchange would also have to be non-replicable. Perhaps a rare one of a kind Pokemon card could be bought with some silver. But if silver becomes easily replicated - or outdated - you may have to resort to dino-poo, ha.

[pusher robot]

But if silver becomes easily replicated - or outdated - you may have to resort to dino-poo, ha.


What the huh? Silver becomes "easily replicated?" This is real life dude, not frappin' Star Trek. Besides, even they had gold-pressed Latinum, so there!

[Plagueround]

What the huh? Silver becomes "easily replicated?" This is real life dude, not frappin' Star Trek. Besides, even they had gold-pressed Latinum, so there!

*Counts number of technologies presented in Star Trek and other science fiction that are now common, everyday items*

You never know for sure what's around the corner. :tt2:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What the huh? Silver becomes "easily replicated?" This is real life dude, not frappin' Star Trek. Besides, even they had gold-pressed Latinum, so there!

What wall are you arguing against now? Where did I say silver will be replicated in the immediate future?

If you're going to chime in at least have the decency not to tear down a straw man. Elemental replication is far from impossible, but I wasn't calling for you to invest in it anytime soon.

Thanks for another enlightening post, Pusher.

[Black Dagger]

covare react like this mainly beccause there was no discussion at all with him, all the people here did so far was to push him, to stuck him in the corner and to beat him badly.

What are you talking about? :confused: