Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/2/03 08:58 PM, StrikerCW wrote: I think the perfect form of government would be Utopian Communism. This would be were there would be no government. The entire world would be in a prepetual state of sharing. If person A grew some tomatoes, and person B grew some lettuse (sp.) then they could just go to each other and get from each other how ever much they need. This even works with professions. Because there would be no need for currency, a doctor could just heal patients for free. He would just be able to get food from the community (ie neighbors). Science would even still work this way. If a scientist made a discovery, he would just share it with the community and the entire scientific world would build upon it. You get the picture. I'm just ranting, and figure I'd see what other people thought. BTW I havn't read the entire thread, as I just joined NewGrounds, but if someone else posted something like this, I'm sorry.

thanks

thats what I like to call ANARCHY!!!! hehehehehe,
as long as there is a gov't people will continue to oppress others, Anarchy tries to minimize that and give the atonomy people need to flourish.

WEll, World War III for sure, no doubt there, but the American senoir staff is smart enought to realize that it's pointless to rule the world when there's not much of a world left. and soo they know that people generally don't like it wars for personally gains, so the implace Client-States instead. Well it's much nicer way of controlling a country. first of all the client government would do all the work for the us, and the us gets most of whatever capital can be squized out of the country. They don't have to deal with domestic issues that would make them look bad (unless it threatened their Client Government) and doesn't Liberation and Regeime change sound much better and acceptable reasons for war then economic growth. The US isn't alone in doing this either. WHo do you think the leader of Afganistan takes his orders from. The good old Impotant UN! Well now adays anyways the idea of Regeime change is wearing alittle thin but be asured that whin a decade or two the leader American officals will come up with aonther Euphimism for Imperialist Colonial Expansion that will appeise the masses.

and sense thise topic is about nukes heres my two sense, Man is too childish to be give the abilily to destroy earth. America dn USSR biult up out of MAD and by doing so more less ensuried the distruction of mankind. now the smaller countries want so of the nucliear action as well. remember what do all men with power want? MORE POWER!, so they biuld there own little Nuclear bombs which to me is quite redundant, more less if even one nuke is detonated as an acually attack, your moreless garenteeing that there will be a nuclear retaliation. so to all those power hungry 3rd world warlords who instead to helping their people waste money on these big bombs, I say this, don't bother the US, Russia, India, North Korea and Patistan have already insured that any challenge to thier power will ultimetly result in a very big boom.

Ya, well Even pacifist like me reconize that war in general can never fully be wipped out, even small petty conflicts are an act of war, (in fact that childish noob arugemt before reminded me most ways wars start. There is a a difference of opinion and because both sides are too arrogant to admitt any fault or that their opposition may have any credible they begin a petty mud-slinging contest. The difference is in a NG Forum sites the only weapons at their disposal are words and so they through words at one another, in the Political world when one warlord/Dictator?president/Prime Minister has a diagreement about something and the shit shoving begins it can go beyond words because these arrogent assholes have the means to use more and deadlier weapons then just words,

and sense absolute power corrupts absolutly any one (even myself) can be corrupted and and send other people to die, it's as simple as that.

At 11/2/03 01:07 PM, Chaoslight wrote:

At 11/2/03 01:02 PM, Evanauto wrote: scary things
Now you know the truth.

That's communism as it became under corrupt rulers. Communism as a government. I was talking about communism the economic model.

I don't find it far when I doctor spend 7 or 8 years in school and learns mountains of information for a job, when a taxi driver only has to know how to drive a car and the local area and infact the driver will amke more money then the doctor. (this is a big problem in Cuba) there is something fundamentally wrong here!, I don't paticularily like money but it' s the modern day bread, give the doctor who has given up much more of his life (and in reality is doing a much more important job) something more (like maybe vacation time, a bigger house. I know it sounds elitist and I'm not usaully described as one but there has to been some sort of benifets for choosing a harsher lifestyle.

On the same note i believe that people with occupations such as mining and farming should be given benifets as well, while it may not be as taxing educationally its a very demanding and harsh physical lifestyle. not only that, miner live significantly shorter lives then that of a doctor because of the conditions that people live in.

and quite frankly there has never been in history a successful and truly "marxist" revolution that has not been corrupted by it's leaders and made into a dictatorship, when stalin kills what was it?, 23 million and Chairman Mao of China killes about the same in there "great leap foward" is it really worth it?

Also your working under the idea that all people in a society with automatically accept this. fact is, Communism is a monistic type of society(that being where only one philiosophical view is tolerated) and history has demonstrated that the desire to diversity and polyistic demands have always pushed through, the problem with communism is that it is a dictorship. If we are talking about Stalinistic Communism then yes, everything is aimed at the "state" and not the people, this in turn destroys the reason for Marxism, to free the working peoples of the world,

It's like the saying, in with the new boss, same as the old.

At 10/23/03 10:19 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote:

At 10/23/03 10:14 PM, EnigmaOfTheDark wrote: It's exactly that, except religion doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. The problems come from a lack of discipline by the parents, not from the removal of the Bible from our halls of learning. Maybe if parents were stricter on "moral behavior," then maybe some of our kids won't resort to violence so readily.

that, my friend, is where you're wrong. Religion is just the formalization of philosophy and morality. It's just a doctrine. It's people who twist religion, not the other way around. If you have a formalized doctrine and philosophy, you have a religion. Learn a little about what easterners consider religion, and I think you will find this to be true.

(thanks Don_Sublime, for teaching me about Zen)

I am always happy to spread to seeds of open-mindedness philosophicaly and religous. See Funk I' have to thank you for introducing my to Nihilism. The more and more I read into it sounds like something for me! My view of religion and violence is this, christain doctrine does not support violence, mabye a line like "Love thigh niebour as thoguh would love thigh self" demonstrates this! I mean it's quite true it's the greed and ambition of others that twist islam and christianity. Quite frankly I know many christians who were apauled by the Iraq war and several isamist who were disgusted by 9/11. I pretty much beleive in this one view of life which I think is christian too but I'm positive can be found the world over,

Do unto others as you would wish done unto you!

At 10/27/03 09:47 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: All the threadz regarding gay issues are the same agruements. Some dumbass posts its wrong unnaturall aydda yadda yadda, we spend 2 pages agrueing he or she is wrong then it starts again.

ya but that seems to be the way of every debate/argument. One makes a point, the other responds, challenges their thinking/logic/fact base, and then the fisrt person will defend his/her argument and challenge the thinking/logic/fact base of the challenger. it's all very cyclistic. the debate either moves more and more broad and universal or more and more specific. So let em start the same thread again and agian cause it's just part of that cycle

*shakes hands*
Pardon my wet hands, Don't you hate it when people piss all over there hands and don't wash them after?

Bush greeting a UN security council meeting

Question from the less-informed, how exactly do you change your aura? I don't know and now I look like a fool!

Well I do not love The US, I do not love my country!, because a nation is an absract idea, its the system created to controll you. I don't love the richest 1% who make the majoirty of descisions. What I love is the people, the average person is who I love, I;m not saying that every person is a lovable individual but on the whole It's people that truly make a nation great.

"my bodys plastic and sylicon too, you can buy it for 5.92"-christian heritage candidate!

I think I'm Pro-choise but after that, You could very well have a good point patten, I just think a women has the right to do what she wants to her body. However I also understand the value of a human life regardless of it's state of physical development.

Damn my conflicting values and beliefs

Most people in the Euro-centric society would tell you that our culture is better because it is free and democratic. people from the Islamic culture would say that the islamic is better cause it's developes firm religous roots, has governments who are not secular and therefore more interested in obaying the korran then commericalizing and westernizing.

To me it's all about perspective and one's own set of personal values. Also it's much easier to to jugde such things in hindsight. We as a species will know which was better in about 500 years.

Canada doesn't have a big army because we don't need to impose our will upon everyone else in the world that why!, Protection from invasion?, what kind of moron invades a country thats about 70% forest, lakes and tundra? good god what would it serve? and don't tell, "well it's to protect us from the terrorists!" Yes because Army Tanks, regiments, fighters, bombers and nuclear missiles make us safer from the evil cardboard cutter carrying terrorists!

Is canada Liberal, well in comparison to America, yes, yes we are, are we "extreme" by no means, the Right wing parties in canada have just united and for a socolist like me it's alittle scary. but if there is a large right wing poplus in canada I will not argue there right to existance, I will however argue that only through debate and discussion can we assertain the truth. And if come the next election the PC(progressive Conservitive) party win the elecctiopn you can be sure that I will judge and critise them, just like I critise the current liberal party. and you can be sure that i would critise the big left-wing party of canada (NDP) if they ever got inot power!

It seems to me that Canadains as a whole are alot more critical towards their government. I Think That us "canukistans" as some american journalist called us, not growing up in the US are not so full of ourselves. We generally as a people embrace different cultures and beliefs. We are less likly to impose our cultural beliefs unpon others. That might explain why Canada tends to be one of the most trusted countries in the UN.

Canada= multi-culturalism
United States= Assimilation

Like I said, something got screwed up along the way, the holocost we can thank to religion and intolerence of others views developed but differences in religion, the same can be said for spainish inquisition, sex offender are chemically imbalenced so to me it's the same as being shizophrenic then a murderer. These people simply need support from the community and helped not to be condemded as evil in my personal opinion (I might get flack about that). I think most things we deem evil can be related back to greed, religion or economics(which pretty much means greed) remember I said most not all

whatever happened to beleiving in the human race?, I'd like to think were not a buntch of primitive fuckheads. Or if we are, I've seen Gorillias co-exist with one another, why can't we, Where did our fading civilization go wrong to give us the things we have today, war, genicide, racism, est, surly the state is responsible for some of this?

Whatever happened to believing in the human race?, I'd like to think we're more then a buntch of primitive fuck heads!, or even if we are, gorillas can co-exist with one another we cant we?, something got really srewded up along the way to bring us where we are now in civilization.

Ya but you see thats violence and well being the pacifist that I am I can't indorce that.

At 9/24/03 01:03 AM, ghoest wrote: true anarchy punk died with punk in the 80s... punk was a movement that lasted for a few years... get over it, the shit you listen to now is mainstream crap that has no soul or meaning... There are a few anarchists out there yet...Yet they are still just waterdowned versions of the people who gave their lives for a cause in the 70s... Go to a WTO protest and you'll see anarchists... At the last one in mexico a man climbed on top of a fence and stabbed himself in the heart to prove a point, now that's not anarchy but it's a man I respect, willing to do anything for what he believed in... The anarchists today are like everyone else apathetic programmed robots watching their own asses... if you want to bring down the government then be willing to walk the walk when you talk the talk...

You know your alittle vaugue about what you would have done, do you support violence? Can you say what exactly the walk is? I'm not pissed at you or nothing rather I want to know what you want to happen, infact all anarchists should in my eyes ask what do they truly want?

At 9/23/03 01:35 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: don_sublime i must commend you for having one of the best arguments for anarchism that i have seen in a long long while.

thanks, that means alot to me, I figure have even one person stop and think, (they don't even have to agree with me) and view the world alittle differently then it's all worth it in my eyes

I think what everyone has to realize is that everyone is a person, now actually think about that, a person includes everyone from myself to you reading this, to Noam Chompsky and even Dick Cheney. And the one thing about all people is that we all feel, we all hurt and we are all passionate about something. To declare that we have the right to harm people like Cheney or Blair or Ultra-nationalists but that they are not allowed to harm us, is in fact the one of the greatest hypocrisy I've ever heard. So to sum that up, any sort of anarchist movement cannot use violence. By doing so you become those who use violence against you. Some would then ask, "How can we possible make any kind of significant change without the use of violence?” it's actually quite simple, do what we're doing right now. Keep an open dialogue; keep working to break down the myths surrounding Anarchism. If you’re really devoted and have some spare time, begin working on underground organizations, designed to support interested people and prepare people should a day when states fall occurs. But most importantly theories, ideas, sciences and philosophies must continue to evolve as to not become dated and pointless. I fear that perhaps philosophies like Marxism has very much become dated and obsolete. I must admit that I probably do not know enough about Marxism though, so if anyone could prove me wrong I would love to hear any comments or objections. Anyways back to my point, I guess it would be that, maybe we won't see anarchism in our lifetimes but if we work hard at it and create the kind of infrastructure needed to support an anarchic society our children could experience that kind of world. It has been done before and I believe it can be done again.

I myself am an Anarchist, not because rancid and the sex pistols are suddenly cool again; but because I generally believe in my soul that people in their natural state are good people. Some may challenge that with their historical references or biblical accounts but in all honestly I don't think there is any way I could view people differently. I really believe that for the most part all people are after the same general thing; I think we are all tiring to fill in that gap in our lives that no one can deny having. So many try to fill that gap with religion, wealth, love, and power. That’s where I think the state emerges. People want to fill that empty space in their hearts and take power and control over others to fill this gap they have. The problem in my eyes is that this power, in fact all of life’s fillers simply do not close the spiritual gap we all feel, and so people with this power will do anything to get just a little more; and in the process use almost any means necessary to achieve it; war, blackmail, theft, ect. The problem here is that no amount of power can fill that emptiness we all feel. Ask any CEO or billionaire how much is enough money and there response, 9 times out of 10 will be never enough. I use that just as an example, I know myself personally there are 2 things that I try to fill my own personal voids with; knowledge and music, are my fillers any more justifiable then that of a Stalin or a Hitler, that’s for me to decide. We all in our own lives, I believe, must discover our fillers and ask ourselves, if it never completely fills me like one too many hits of acid, is what I’m doing right? Is it just? Or do I take advantage of others for my own personal satisfaction? This, I believe goes beyond politics, it's something we must all as humans, not as liberals, conservatives, NDP (Canadian political party) a fascist or a Marxist or a anarchist must strive to understand. Maybe, just maybe (I'm still allowed to dream after all) some of our petty bickering would vanish if we all just looked at ourselves and questioned why we do, what we do.