Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/10/03 10:18 PM, P-Chan wrote:

At 1/8/03 09:02 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

There is a problem with this thread that makes any good debate very difficult.

What do you mean by Socialism?!?

Is socialism a nation like Cuba or is it Sweden? The reason I'm asking this is because many people consider socialist nations communist ones. (In reality communism most certainly does not exist.)

Only when you can identify what socialism is, can you truly critic it.

This is true. The sort of socialism I am refering to is when it is fully implemented as it is in Cuba.

(Also, I hope you're not suggesting that America is anywhere near a socialist system.)

I am not. I would prefer a more lassiez faire economic system but then I hate governement.

At 1/10/03 11:45 AM, Slizor wrote: Something sound, instead of pure speculation.

goverments are always ineffecient...there is so much beuracrcy that much of what is put in is always lost.

That is a monopoly, not a dictatorship.

Aside from semantics whats the difference? In either system you have no choice...that is all that matters.

Legal sweatshops are a symptom of corrupt governments not capitalism.

Despite the fact that practically every country in the world has had sweatshops...

Yes but to how great a degree? They exist everywhere but they are prevelent only in nations with corrupt governements.

At 1/9/03 07:57 PM, Red_XXV wrote:
Socialism takes away some economic liberties while ensuring civil liberties.

Why should either have to be sacrificed? If you can explain to me how capitalism takes away civil liberties I would be pretty fucking impressed.

At 1/9/03 05:13 PM, Slizor wrote:

What right do they have to fly fucking airplanes into our god damned skyscrapers?

You do recognise the difference between terrorists and Iraq? Or are you so stupid I'll have to explain it for you?

Are you such an idiot that you don't see that the two are related. If a government supports terrorism is it not an accomplice to it?

At 1/9/03 06:04 PM, Slizor wrote:
A reason why it won't, not based on the idea that money is the only motivating factor.

governmental innefficency.

When did anyone say that a Socialist government is a dictatorship?

There is only one product per neccesity available... if the government is making them. People have no choice...unless they want to switch to capitalism.

On a seperate point a socialist government has enough power over people that it has a high likely hood of evolving into a dictatorship.

By having an arbitrary system of value.

Oh so what is your socialist government going to provide in place of my material possesions?

Sweatshops are illegal in my country, as in yours.

Go to the areas America has forced free trade on. :D

Legal sweatshops are a symptom of corrupt governments not capitalism. Corrupt governments coincidentally are why you should be afraid of giving your rights away Slizor.

At 1/9/03 05:59 PM, Slizor wrote: Has there ever, ever been total employment? Right, see in Britian here strange thing is things seem to work against your view of things. In the 1980s(the birth of me!) we had a very high unemployment rate, yet we had the worst benefits since the start of the welfare state. Is it possible that the reason people couldn't get jobs...is because there aren't any?

There are always jobs, perhaps not enjoyable ones but they exist.

Or just screwed a few thousand people.

possible, but eventually they will have a child who is a dumbass that will lose the family fortune when some one else screws him or her out of their money.

How about Equality?

If my property is being taken from me and delivered to someone else is there really equality? In your socialist "utopia" the governement can choose who is entitled to rights....that hardly sounds like a utopia to me.

Prove it.

The retaurded are an example. What the hell do they have going for them?

Nature can not be deduced from what is. We do not live in nature, we live in an artifical world.

In any group of social animals there are always some who are better off. The Alpha male, in wolves or apes for example.

At 1/9/03 05:32 PM, Slizor wrote:
Indeed you are, I would just love to give you what you deserve(ahem.) I just don't define "what you deserve" by "how much money you could make".

What is the government going to give me in place of posessions? What good feelings and pat on the back?

I was going to ask you the same thing, why do people have a right to peoples' property?

Notice, the placing of the comma is deliberate and has a different meaning

Because they have found a way to earn it plain and simple. In time some of the "people" (the rich for those of you who don't have the patience to figure out Slizor's riddles) will lose their money and it will go to the "peoples'"(every one else). The rich (or lazy) but stupid will fall and the smart (or industrious) yet poor will rise. This is natural selection in action.

At 1/9/03 05:24 PM, Slizor wrote:
A choice between shit is still shit.

And you expect your wonderful, fictional socialist government to make a superior product? Thats fucking hilarious.

To the government, in Capitalism the chains just go to more things.

Don't be so fucking obscure. There is no way to debate someone who says nothing.

It might, but then again, like on a lot of issues, it might not as it is not accountable to the public, like a Socialist government is.

How praytell is a socialist government accountable? There is one government...in modern society succesful revolutions are near impossible.

You did not really earn it, it is not really yours.

How doesn't someone earn what they have worked for?

You work in a fucking sweatshop then try and talk about hard work. That is the very worst of Capitalism, you think you deserve what you get when they get shit?

Sweatshops are illegal in my country, as in yours.

At 1/9/03 05:20 PM, Red_XXV wrote: There's a better chance for humanity and society to succeed if we work together for the benefit of each other. No one is saying individuals should not succeed, they have the right to do so, but why not try to help society at the same time?

I could care less for the benfit of others. If they want to succeed they can take care of themselves. In the United States there is no one who is employed who is likely to starve to death thus they have the oppurtunity to pull themselves up. They may not be able to pull themselves up out of the gutter to be a millionaire but they might be able to pull themselves into the middle class. Then their children can have a better oppurtunity. Rich families are rich because someone in their family worked to get where they are. What gives the government the right to destroy the work of generations in the name of equality?

If everyone is created equal, the playing field should be even at the beginning so people can have the same opportunities. The government's job isn't to bail out the people who blow those opportunities, it's to make sure they have those opportunities.

All men are not created equal. Some people will always be up and some will always be down it is nature. Men are equal before the law...they are not equal in nature.

At 1/9/03 05:16 PM, Red_XXV wrote: On your profile it says you're 18, and I'm sure that your 18 years have provided you with an unsurpassed plethora of experience. You know what it's like to put yourself through college by working three jobs, been on your own, found that perfect job for you, gotten married, raised a family, and have been enough of a success in life to justify your views. Please tell us more about working your whole fucking life to make something of yourself, we'd love to hear more about as esteemed a life as yours.

I realize I am far from a self made man. However for my life to this point I have worked quite hard. There is nothing to say that I won't fuck up later in life and end up working at 7-11. At this point in my life I have put forth a great deal of effort to make sure that eventuality doesn't occur. I have worked much harder than the multitude of rednecks that fill my school to attempt to provide myself with more oppurtunity. Am I not entitled to more oppurtunity then the afore mentioned rednecks?

At 1/9/03 05:00 PM, Red_XXV wrote:

At 1/9/03 04:46 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Socialism is more extreme than a welfare state...thus the dependence on the government is even more extreme.

Socialism, in the purist form, is not a welfare state. If you'd like to do further reading on that, I can suggest some books for you. It's when unchecked capitalism and socialism get together that a welfare state begins. As I said above, it's one of capitalism's traits that it finds ways to come out on top when it faces something that runs counter to it. It's that adability to new situations that is reason the system has been around for several thousand years and still reigns supreme. I'm saying capitalism is inherently wrong, as much good has come as a result of it, but it does not create an equal playground, which is something I feel we attempt to remedy somehow.

Capitalism is dominant because ownership is part of human nature. Greed is resultant of man's self survival instinct.

I would like to find a book that could provide a clearer definition of socialism....if you have a recomendation I would like to hear it. However I am only interested in books based on fact...not opinion.

At 1/9/03 02:45 PM, Slizor wrote: Why do people have a right to property?

Why? Why? Because my life is my own! My effort is mine! I am entitled to the fruits of my labor...you are entitled to yours.

Why do people have the right to other people's property Slizor?

At 1/9/03 02:32 PM, Red_XXV wrote: Socialism equals dependence? The only way one could think that is to base the view off of the smear campaign the US employs against the far left. As Slizor said, a socialist government's goal is to provide more opportunity than people would get otherwise. If everyone should succeed on their own merits, as most capitalists believe, then a socialist government looks to even the playing field so everyone is afforded the same opportunities at the start. But that's exactly what a purely capitalist regime does not want, as there's a chance for everyone to succeed in that scenario. But at the moment, there are no true socialist or communist states to base our knowledge off of. The problem with capitalism is that it is an exclusive system in that it cannot tolerate a different economic system, and that creates an inherent conflict.

There is a greater chance for everyone to suceed in capatilism. In addition in capitalism a person's sucess isn't capped as it is in a socialist system.

I ask you why should the playing field be even? Why should I be dragged down to make myself the equal of all? In capitalism you sink or you swim...but if the government is there to bail you out why should you ever learn to swim?

And Whitedragon_my, as far as communism, what people in the US equate as communism is NOT real communism, it's a view of Soviet Communism, which is a vastly different system than pure communism. A bastardized form of communism, if you will.

True communism is a fools dream, it isn't possible in the real world. History as proven this again, and again, and again.....

At 1/9/03 02:05 PM, Slizor wrote:
In a capitalist one they become dependent on Companies.

Yes but companies must compete with eachother. The government has no competition and thus total dominance.

"Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains." You use of the word enslavement is weakly qualified, frankly I just think it is used to add the negative connotations the word has.

Sadly man can never be truly free without society crumbling. However the more power one sacrifices to the government the more enslaved they become.

How is this different from Capitalism again?

If a company recquired you to suck their CEO's cock in order to get a product you might choose to stop buying said product. Or another company might make a product with the new "No Cock Sucking Gurantee" and the other company would be forced to compete or die.

It is a socialist's governments perogative to give you as many freedom's as possible(it is a government for the people!), it is a Capitalist Government's perogative to safeguard their(and the rich elite's) property, even if it limits personal freedoms.

Oh yes a socialist government will give you as many freedoms as they want after they tax the fuck out of you as punishment for your sucess. I have worked my whole fucking life to make something of myself and I look around and see the worthless pieces of shit who learn nothing and contribute nothing and I must wonder how they are entitled to as pleasent a lifestyle as I.

At 1/9/03 03:24 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 1/8/03 11:09 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Aren't there any ardent communists on here for me to argue with anymore?

One socialism is not communism fuck wit.

Did I say it was dumbass?

Two You seem to be confussing the well fare state for true socialism, so whats' the point in arguing?

Socialism is more extreme than a welfare state...thus the dependence on the government is even more extreme.

At 1/9/03 06:56 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: Or think if they really are "corrupt" ornot. Perhaps only different. What right do we have to oust them?

What right do they have to fly fucking airplanes into our god damned skyscrapers? Islam is a thousand years out of date....even the Catholic church has adapted a little with the times but Islam hasn't. If Islamic teaching about destroying the infidels leads them to kill thousands of innocent people then we westerners have the right to protect ourselves.

Hitler was "different" perhaps would should have left him alone too.....

Aren't there any ardent communists on here for me to argue with anymore?

At 1/8/03 10:16 PM, Nightshadeplus wrote:

At 1/8/03 10:07 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I should be able to protest the school's arbitrary rules. Also I should be able to use whatever profanity I wish. In the real world if you someone on the street says somthing you object to you can't go and tell teacher.

True true...but you also shouldn't disrespect teachers by yelling at them and cussing at them because in real life, if you don't like what your boss says to you, tough. If you say anything back to them that disrespects them, your ass is fired.

This is true, but you can discuss whatever you wish with your friends at work.

There isn't an employer on the face of the planet (well at least not in the U.S.) that has the chutzpah to keep their workers from talking.

At 1/8/03 10:12 PM, swayside wrote:

At 1/8/03 04:43 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Schools only take away freedoms when you let them. Read all the constitutional cases dealing with free speech in schools, there aren't that many of them, but once you have read them, you're pretty much exempt from all the stupid rules.

could i have a refference to these cases. i'd like to know the limits.

Tinker Vs. Des Moines Public School District thats the best one for protesting school policies

sadly most of the other decisions state how the schools have the right to limit freedom of speech...damn supreme court.

At 1/8/03 09:56 PM, Nightshadeplus wrote: Why is a homosexual couple UNABLE to raise a child?

Or are you saying that a homosexual couple is unable to raise a child correctly?

Yes that is what I am saying....they may have good intentions but the kid is gonna end up fucked up.

At 1/8/03 10:02 PM, Nightshadeplus wrote:

At 1/8/03 09:50 PM, implodinggoat wrote: However I do think I should be able to say whatever the hell I want!

Such as what?

I should be able to protest the school's arbitrary rules. Also I should be able to use whatever profanity I wish. In the real world if you someone on the street says somthing you object to you can't go and tell teacher.

At 1/8/03 04:53 AM, The_Raven wrote:

Assassination, except done without creating a repeat of world war one.

Right On! Shoot the mother fucker! If we could shoot that bitch in the head and then support a Democratic movement in Iraq then we could have a government in place that would actually be popular with the people and possibly viewed by other Islamic nations as something more than and American puppet.

At 1/6/03 07:41 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Iran is a much better target for fucking than Iraq. Iran is the source of the fundamentalist Islam (they have the ayatolla khomehmnhehihehmmhhihmmhihniminimi (sp?) which is the backbone of terror against western civilization.

Ayatollah Komeini died in the 80's man. The Iranians are no more fundamentalist than most middle eastern Muslims. They are Shiat muslims where as most muslims are Sunni muslim. Most Islamic terrorists are Sunnis. What we need to do is find a way to reform the Muslim church. If the damn Mullahs there weren't telling their followers to kill the infidel then many Muslims wouldn't be the extremists they are.

At 1/8/03 09:42 PM, zMDude wrote: Um.........I don't get it.

I don't know what school you guys come from, but the way I see it the only people who have a problem with school authority are probably doing something they shouldn't.

My school recently had a crack down on alcohol use on the school grounds, and who complained? Only the druggies....

I am a damn good student, but I like to speak my mind. When I was a freshman I was sent to detention 32 times due to this.

I don't want to be able to smoke pot at school or drink....well okay maybe I would like to drink at school but I realize that it would lead to anarchy and hinder my education.

However I do think I should be able to say whatever the hell I want!

At 1/8/03 09:37 PM, calmius wrote: You moron. That's why when you're 18, if you dont like school rules, you're allowed to leave school without graduating. If you want to graduate then you have to stay.
Law is the law.

Oh I'm allowed to leave school? Well thats fucking brilliant! Then I can throw away my 4.0 GPA and my 1540 SAT and work at 7-11 brilliant idea!

I need to go to school to be a succesful individual, now tell me if something is as vital as that does the school have the right to such dominance?

Should the government be able to tax the air I breath?

Anarchy is a fine dream....no government to control you and total control over your own fate.....

Sadly it doesn't work...government is needed to help organize a structured society and keep people from killing eachother.

In an Anarchist system someone such as myself would rise to power and set themselves up as dictator. Now that would be good for me, but probably not for everyone else.

At 1/8/03 08:31 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.

Homosexuality is most likely a genetic disorder. As a heterosexual I can't see any man consciously making the decision to have sex with another man.

Take for an example this. A great number of gay men have iffeminate voices....perhaps this could be linked to some sort of genetic disorder.

Gays, don't deserve to be ostricized as long as they aren't rubbing their sexuality in we poor heterosexuals faces. I don't want to hear about it because I don't care.

However, gays also don't deserve the right to marry. Marriage is conducted by religions. If a religion doesn't want gay marriages then the government has no right to force them to conduct them. In addition the married status issued by the government is meant to aid families. Since a homosexual couple is unable to raise a child as well as a normal couple they don't deserve this status.

At 1/8/03 08:13 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: obviously if people are having sex with them, pre teens must have something people are attracted to.

Man there are people out there who have sex with house cats. There is a pervert for any peculiarity.

At 1/6/03 05:56 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I wonder why you would say that it would be horrible for a child to grow up with gay parents.

It is hypocritical for gays to want to raise children. Gays themselves go through a great deal of harassment due to their sexuality. By adopting a child they are going to subject their child to a great deal of ostricism.

In addition their child is more likely then not going to be a heterosexual and that kid is going to have some major fucking issues to work out.

At 1/8/03 08:43 PM, calmius wrote: If you're in school freedom of speech doesn't apply to you. Also, you should not be afraid of anyone knowing what you're doing or talking about if it's not bad. If you don't like control then you must be hiding something. Most students in school are under 18, you're not an adult yet, and you don't deserve freedoms adults have.

So what you are saying is that some arbitrary division in age makes it all right for the schools to impose fascism. I know people who are 16 who are more intelligent and responsible than many people will ever be. There are fourty year old idiots out there who have the intelligence of a house cat and the self control of a toddler and you are saying that somehow they are entitled to more freedom than even the most intelligent and responsible student?

Your assertion that....."if you don't like control you must be hiding something" disgusts me. All human beings are hiding something! No one is without sin! Are you the one who's going to cast the first stone?

Furthermore where is it the school's right to determine if what I am talking about is "bad"?

By the way, I'm finishing up my senior year and I've been 18 for months now. Why then am I not entitled to say whatever the fuck I want in school? Am I not entitled to freedom of speech?