Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I repeat. It is not "taught". It is created by the the environment person lives in and by the way he/she is nurtured.

Ah, so you're going to be vague and say "It's from early life."

Where it comes from? It comes from the normal human attraction to the members of the opposite sex. Everyone gets horny, right? but some people confuse what they really desire and for them, other things become desirable.

Ah, so you know better!

Some may confuse what is sexual love and what is compassionate love. They might think they "love the other person" but really they're just looking for companionship like they would in a friend.

Maybe people start off bisexual ut society forces them to repress the gay feelings. Since this is all conjecture.

So basically, homosexuals are really confused.

Why animals display such behavior?
I will explain. Sexual rituals between members of the same sex in animals can be seen sometimes in apes and monkeys. However, it is totally different from what humans do.
Chimpanzees, makaques, baboons, and such may display gay behavior as a display of dominance, not love or compassion.
It only occurs in male apes and monkeys. He may show that he is the boss by symbolically humping another male in the ass, because that's what he does to his females. The alpha male of the group is like the boss there so he must show control. By doing this to another male he only shows that he's the boss.
It doesn't even involve the actual intercourse.

Can someone bring up the article on the gay sheep?

A reason why it won't, not based on the idea that money is the only motivating factor.

governmental innefficency.

Something sound, instead of pure speculation.

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.

That is a monopoly, not 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?

I don't quite get you....

Legal sweatshops are a symptom of corrupt governments not capitalism.

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

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.

Then how come, when there is the biggest incentive to get a job...those people didn't?

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.

Like George Dubya?

How about Equality?

If my property is being taken from me and delivered to someone else is there really equality?

All property will be taken and given to all..equality.

In your socialist "utopia" the governement can choose who is entitled to rights....

It can?!

Prove it.

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

(I need more of a quote from what I said.)

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.

What are those things called...muskrats? The things which stand on their hindlegs to look out for predators....social animals...live in a collective.

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.

You need to do a it more english. What I mean was that why does anyone have the right to take land that is for everyone?

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.

Sadly this is not so, and strangely enough, America has lower social mobility than Europe....if you ask for proof it will be provided, if you take my word for it I don't have to trawl through a book.

If homosexuality is taught, then where did the idea come from? How come some animals display signs of homosexuality?

Ronald Reagan....eurgh.

Nixon would probably have been impeached...but he resigned.

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?

Actually I see what you're saying, yeah. But how does that apply to any situation? Since Iraq doesn't actually support "terror" and despite having a common enemy, Saddam and Osama still hate each other. And with the Taliban...offering to hand Osama over...real accomplice there.

As for havesting...well you probably should get something for that.

something? i should own all that i harvest.

How do you figure? You didn't do the majority of the work nature did. It should be nature's harvest.

A choice between shit is still shit.

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

A reason why it won't, not based on the idea that money is the only motivating factor.

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.

You would think, but I manage to debate you.

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.

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

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

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

By having an arbitrary system of value.

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.

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

I could care less for the benfit of others. If they want to succeed they can take care of themselves.

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?

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.

The United States is an exception and not indicative of the whole of Capitalism and Capitalist theory.

Rich families are rich because someone in their family worked to get where they are.

Or just screwed a few thousand people.

What gives the government the right to destroy the work of generations in the name of equality?

How about Equality?

All men are not created equal.

Prove it.

Some people will always be up and some will always be down it is nature.

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

It's hard to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent when the innocent do nothing to stop the guilty. Even harder when the 'innocent' help the guilty.

That's exactly what I think. Like how the CIA armed and supported Osama for years, and America armed and supported Saddam as well...infact, they did that so he would go against people like Osama.

isreal used this land as payment for the arab acknowlegement of israel's right to exist.

Hmm, that's one way of putting it...a stupid way since Israel attaked first...but a way.

they were horribly outnumbered, but they kicked some major butt.

But the other countries were not co-ordinated together, plus Israel managed to wipe out a lot in the first attacks.

how much better do you think america will fair again the terroist nations and their allies?

Terrorist nations? What about China?

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.

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".

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

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

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

A choice between shit is still shit.

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

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

You do understand that Iraq didn't do that? Or are you too stupid?

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?

Why do people have a right to property?

In a socialist system the people become dependent on the government.

In a capitalist one they become dependent on Companies.

As dependent as we have become on the governement in the United States further socializing our government would only result in further dependence on the government. When one becomes dependent, one becomes enslaved.

"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.

Here is an example...you are a lower class worker and the government puts in a new provision that to continue recieving government assistance you must suck a government official's cock on command (this is obviously a dramatazation). Now you have no desire to suck a government officials cock but you have organized your budget so that you need the government money to pay your bills.

How is this different from Capitalism again?

To be truly free you must live without any governement intervention on your life. Sadly, without government society would fall into chaos. Thus man must find the balance that maintains order, yet leaves him as free as possible. The question you must ask yourself is given the choice would you prefer to be free and responsible, or dominated yet secure?

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.

Or maybe that land is Israel's to begin with.

Or maybe bullshit.

And you seem to be very knowledgeable about "what palestinians live through" how would you know what Israelis live through.

Well, let's see, their standard of living is massively higher to that of the Palestinians, they don't get stopped at military checkpoints, they don't get periodically blown to bits by American superior weapons.... hmm

ANd how does that justify suicide bombings?

It doesn't, but it justifies Israel taking the first step.

Socialism is not communism, but communism is socialism.

No, socialism is the first step to Communism when used in the Communist sense.

And why should Israel be the one to stop retribution.

A) They have taken all the land. B) They kill the most people. C) They are a superior force.

Don't you watch the news? Israel doesn't do anything for months, then BOOM terrorist blows himself up.

Do you know what the Palestinians live through? Maybe Israel doesn't actively attack them, but they fuck them over ever single day.

The problem with your argument there is that you won't have grown it, it will have grown.

it will have grown by with my planting it, caring for it, and harvesting it.

Caring for it? It gets sunlight from the sun, water from the rain and nutrients from the soil. It would have planted itself anyhow(just not in neat rows). As for havesting...well you probably should get something for that.

The reason Reagan increased the debt was because he was unable to reduce government spending.

He couldn't decrease Government spending? How thick is he? It wouldn't exactly be hard to find some money to cut(DEFENCE!)

The rate at which the government debt increases is smaller than the economic growth that he caused.

It may have been you or someone else, but I will make this point. Under Reagan and Bush's 12 years the economy was going down the shitter. I'd like to point this out again, 12 years. America has a economy of short-term profits(unlike the European much much longer term) and you're saying it took 12 years for the things he did to kick in? Hah. Although, the influence of Reagan did kick in a year ago by the collapse of Enron, bloody de-regulisation.

(According to you) they can, but I was talking about their motives, not their right.

their motives are irrelevant if it's not immoral.

Motives make something moral, or immoral, so they are very important.

paying someone to do something is morral.

But ripping someone off is not.

and don't try to say that paying someone a small amount to do something is wrong because the person doesn't have to do it. he can always choose not to.

And he CAN starve.

For the consumer(maybe) but there would be a fairer distribution of wealth.

and that's fair? distribution of wealth? only if you make/earn what you have. rich people aren't robbing you just by being rich.

They deny people of their natural right to share in the wealth of the Earth.

So you think people shouldn't be afforded the least it of dignity?

in order to attract workers, busnesses have to make the working environment pleasant, but they don't have ti, just like no one has to work there.

I disagree, people HAVE to work there, they are just not forced to work there by the companies, but y their situation.

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

slaves don't get payed wages, moron.

Do wage slaves?

a slave, by definition, is a person "owned" by someone else.

And companies in effect "own" the people they pay.

i think that's exactly what he means. the right to life is that you have a right to live, it's that simple. you don't have a right to have other people take care of you at their expense in the corporate world.

"Their expense" hah.

i'd like to see you back up that "hah". caring for someone is an expense. anyone can tell you that.

Caring for someone in the way of looking after a disabled person is an expense. Giving someone what they deserve is not an expense.

europe isn't exacyly a trove of good gorvernmental knowledge. socialization means that the people pay more taxes for what they may or may not use/take advantage of. that's not right. i shouldn't have to pay for anything more than what i use. i don't want to pay someone else's medical bill.

See, Europe has a different view of ownership than the American one. Even the Old British Conservative party recognised this. The rich have a responsibility for the poor, because the poor are the people who work for the rich to make them rich.

and as for being wrong unless i give away all excess, what give another person the right to what i have. if i grow it, i own it. if they didn't grow it, they don't own it. they shouldn't get what i have unless they compensate me for it, in other words, pay.

The problem with your argument there is that you won't have grown it, it will have grown.

Because they are greedy bastards?

no. because they can do what they want with what's their's. they make the jobs, so they can make them as tedious as they want to.

(According to you) they can, but I was talking about their motives, not their right.

See, the problem here is that efore big corporations....these things still happened...and they would still after them.

true but they (would) cost more.

For the consumer(maybe) but there would be a fairer distribution of wealth.

The property rights of a Corporation are not as important as the rights of indivuals.

when a company employs you, they are paying you to do what they want you to do. you can always quit.

So you think people shouldn't be afforded the least it of dignity?

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

slaves don't get payed wages, moron.

Do wage slaves?

So by "right to life" you don't actually mean they would be given what is needed to live, just that other people couldn't kill them?

i think that's exactly what he means. the right to life is that you have a right to live, it's that simple. you don't have a right to have other people take care of you at their expense in the corporate world.

"Their expense" hah.

Have you read the Ayn Rand Shite, I've read all the commie stuff, I've read Kant, I've read Hegel, I've read Marx, I've read Engels.

Kant is a commie? Well, I suppose with the Catogircal imperative it could be taken as a bit communist. Hegel wasn't actually a commie, but helped Marx along. I read the articles on the site.

"Because they are greedy bastards?"
What's so bad about greed, did they tell you that in church or something

(I never went to church.) Greed in small quantites is fine, but greed in large quantities, so large that it hurts other people? Not a very good idea.

I'll make you a deal, You read Atlas Shrugged, and make an attempt to like it. I'll read any book of your choice (less than 2000 pages if possible) and try to enjoy it.

I'm going to hae to decline this deal, but I may actually read Atlas Shrugged (one day I've got three books on the go and a pile on my "to do".)

How about it, is it a deal? I'd hate to see a briliant mind like yours be wasted helping poor people when you could be helping yourself.

What if I do both?

Reagan is the reaon for the economic success during the Clinton years. Think of it this way. If I put $10 in a bank, I'll be a little bit poorer for a few years. But later on, it'll have grown and I'll have $15. Reagan figuratively "saved" the money, and later on, Clinton "withdrew" the money.

Despite the fact that Reagan massively increased the National debt...from which they still haven't recovered..

FDR...now he was a good president, actually knowing how the economy works and helping people.

At 1/6/03 04:42 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Does? Or should? All work should e paid roughly the same. I mean yeah people higher up probably should be paid a bit more, but is their work millions of times more important than the people at the bottom of a ladder.

Yes, I think so, without the bigshots on top, the rest would fall apart.

Without the people at the bottom it would fall apart too.

I have my own little micro-business going right now and living fuck is it hard. There's a ton of stuff to manage. I've had to design flyers, convince businesses to distribute them, actually do the work, keep people happy, get more work done and so on.

And you think you're working hundreds or thousands times harder then other people?

If become hugely successful, I think that I'll deserve huge amounts of money, running a business is hard work, plus there's a huge chance that things won't work out and my time and money will be wasted.

Hard work like getting up at 5 am every morning to turn bricks?

Furthermore, how much do you think the corporate supergiants actually spend on themselves. Chances are in favor of the money being invested in libraries and museums.

Hahahahaha, your bit before was fine, but you think they'd give to charity when they won't even give people a living wage?

I'd like to nominate Slizor, his well-informed views just devour this board. This is to you Slizor, I love you baby!*wipes away tear*

But seriously, I would go for recently returned P-Chan, the occasional AnarchyPenguin and for the "not-been-in-a-long-time" shorbe. May their images can carved out of stone and put at the enterance to the forum.