Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/31/05 02:19 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 3/31/05 11:11 AM, SpamWarrior wrote: Psychiatry is coming up with more and more new illnesses each year, and different categorisations of the same illnesses. To them, mental illness = money. The more people that they can persuade are reallly really ill, the longer the 'patient' will stay with the shrink.

So wait, your rational to clinical psychology being bad is that they keep finding new illnesses/problems. Yes, damn them for doing their jobs. I'm sorry if the truth about the depths and variety of psychological problems bother you, but it doesn't make them not exist.

Clinical Psychology uses people as scapegoats for societies ills. As AGAIN i will say.
Depressed people, often have reason to be depressed. A very very good reason is that the world is a shithole, where people die and are exploited for other peoples greed. Yet people who seem to notice these things get branded as weirdo's, or maybe emo these days. Either way, they become ignored by wider society.

And just because someone who's government approved tells you that you are ill, and you should take this medicine, you should? You are incredibly naive if you believe that. People with social issues get given drugs to make them forget or not care about the outer world, and make them care about themselves and their immediate social situation. Which happens to be "oh shit, i've gone mental so bad i need to be on drugs for it" Hardly a nice feeling, I know....

At 3/31/05 01:31 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 3/31/05 12:36 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 3/31/05 11:22 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: First I would like to see your evidence that black people are diagnosed more often with mental illnesses than white people.

Hmmm, i did have a source but i lost it. Maybe i confused it with my statistics on crime i learned in sociology.

I think you did.

I have studied psychology as a patient and as a student.. I know it can be beneficial, and make people feel better. But when people are depressed because the world is a shitty place, why do people get given drugs that make them happy, when they should feel depressed, because thats how they truly feel.

To be diagnosed with clinical depression it needs to last for a period of more than 6 months with fairly continous depression. Depression is a serious mental illness, and is often a factor in most suicides. I dunno, maybe it would be good to prevent these.

Yes, lets ignore giant social issues of famine poverty and oppression, and just keep taking happy pills, forgetting that people are dying, even though it could be prevented for at least some time.

Because people die directly from cancer, and it is an obvious visible change. I believe cancer is evolution gone wrong, a bad mutation. Maybe i'm wrong, but cancer kill through direct physical affects, mental disorders mostly have the buffer of emotions and hormones before the body is severely affected.

And hearing voices, seeing people that aren't there or having dilusions that the FBI is sending you messages in your newspaper are clearly good mutation. Sure it may or may not directly kill them (some do though) but it can seriously imped their quality of life. Like people with schizophrenia or people with OCD may not even be able to hold down a job because of their habits. There is physically somethign wrong with people with mental disorders, usually though we can not figure out exactly what it is. It could be a harmonal imbalance, a defective part of the brain etc

Well, the person that may not be there, could that be a demon or an angel? Or something else? Do you see the connection of psychology vs freedom of thinking?

Or maybe psychics arent all frauds? Maybe those who can hear what people think are actually just incredibly good at body language and a form of mental triangulation. Maybe they are psychic.

Another way of looking at the argument is "common sense" versus supernaturalism.

True, as i said, some people need help. But i think society as a whole should be fixed more than individuals. Psychology is used to label those who disagree with parts of society, and it brings shame on them and their family, even more so because it can prevent people who have recovered from getting a job.

First off its usually is the person with the disorder who goes to seek help because it is impairing their quality of life or causing them distress. Its not often the cops bust down a door and drag someone off to have their mental health checked. In fact for many disorderes it is a requirement that it causes them distress or impares their quality of life (in there opinon). If you have imaginary friends, but you are quite happy like that then you do not have a disorder. I have a mental disorder and I have held down many jobs (most of my bosses I even made aware of it and still got raises or promotions and never been fired). I dont buy that it brings shame on the family bit, if anything it can bring shame if they dont get help.

This is just it tho, there are people that need help, and there are people that society needs to listen to. People get depressed because the world is harsh, and unfair, and the people in power have the power to change it all, but not the will....

Anyway, about the family. I'd go on about the capitalist machine but nearly everyone on newgrounds is too immature to accept my ideas right to exist, never mind that i am right. *sigh*

True, individual differences and circumstances, so indeed, your condition didnt hold you back. What i'm tryin to put across is the possibilities of the government using psychiatry to manipulate the people. For example, when the Soviet Union was used to discredit communism, people that disagreed got send for re education. What i aim to imply here is that the control of the people in capitalist society at least in the west, is more subtle.

At 3/31/05 11:20 AM, jonthomson wrote:

At 3/31/05 11:11 AM, SpamWarrior wrote: 1 The Mothman Prophecies, whilst it is a fiction/based on true life/whatever, it raises good points.

I want the two hours I spent watching that film back.

Hmmmm, maybe you would've preferred some explosions and gunfire? The point being, human beings can on the whole, only see a small part of the light spectrum, just within this set of dimensions that we currently all believe in, there is a lot of stuff we cant see with the naked eye. Considering how little we know about our place in the universe, i think its closed minded to class people with 'hallucinations' as ill and deserving medications.

At 3/31/05 11:22 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: First I would like to see your evidence that black people are diagnosed more often with mental illnesses than white people.

Hmmm, i did have a source but i lost it. Maybe i confused it with my statistics on crime i learned in sociology.

Second of all I would like to say you are part of the problem. People like you who say mental illnesses aren't real, that we are faking it (I have a mental disorder, am I faking it?). Just cause you cant see it or don't understand it doesnt make it not real. Perhaps you should take a course on psychology.

I have studied psychology as a patient and as a student.. I know it can be beneficial, and make people feel better. But when people are depressed because the world is a shitty place, why do people get given drugs that make them happy, when they should feel depressed, because thats how they truly feel.

To be diagnosed with mental illnesses one must meet specific criteria. One of ther most important parts is, depending on the disorder must a.)impare you daily function and lower your quality of life or b.)cause you distresses, also c.)be illegal (sexual mental health issues only). The reason they keep coming out with more mental disorders is because they do more research on them and discover more things. Just cause you can't see it doesn't mean its not real. How do we know that cancer really isn't evolution, maybe we shouldnt treat it because its just people who want to get rich that treat it?

Because people die directly from cancer, and it is an obvious visible change. I believe cancer is evolution gone wrong, a bad mutation. Maybe i'm wrong, but cancer kill through direct physical affects, mental disorders mostly have the buffer of emotions and hormones before the body is severely affected.

Clinical Psychology helps people live better quality or even normal lives. They treat everything from phobias to depression, ADHD to vouyerism, eating disorders to schizophrenia.

True, as i said, some people need help. But i think society as a whole should be fixed more than individuals. Psychology is used to label those who disagree with parts of society, and it brings shame on them and their family, even more so because it can prevent people who have recovered from getting a job.

Should this an institution be changed or abolished? I believe so.
Whilst there are genuinely mentally people, who really should either be euthanised or locked up, not sure which, Psychiatry is a commercial venture, which is also a tool of the government. How easy it is to label people who are on strike from unfair working conditions, as depressed, or borderline disorder. Psychiatry places the blame straight on the individual, regardless of social causes of mental disorder.
For an example of this, whilst merely statistical, there is a higher proportion of poor young black men being diagnosed as schizophrenic or some other illness. This is in higher proportion than say, the white men who make the rules.

I think the most obvious problem, is that psychiatry is beyond self serving. People have problems with society, get told that its THEIR value systems that are making themselves suffer. These people are then charged to make themselves better, all the time the psychiatrists are slowly forming peoples heads into a puddle.
Indeed, not all psychiatrists will be up to bull like that, but the great majority will.

Psychiatry is coming up with more and more new illnesses each year, and different categorisations of the same illnesses. To them, mental illness = money. The more people that they can persuade are reallly really ill, the longer the 'patient' will stay with the shrink.

On a next note, what if people who claim they can see things no one else can, what if they are actually right? All you need to consider is two things

1 The Mothman Prophecies, whilst it is a fiction/based on true life/whatever, it raises good points.
2. Quantum Physics/Mechanics. Whilst i'm not too clear on what thats about, other than that electrons can be in two places at the same time, its intruiging that the scientific view on life changes remarkably.
Oh and another point is EVOLUTION

Just stop, imagine a world where hearing did not exist. Now imagine someone else getting distressed by a noise that no one else can hear. They'd be seen as insane, whereas they actually were evolving a hearing system.

A slightly connecting point, psychiatry can be used against religion, but seemingly only those the Christian churches dont agree with. Ie Paganism. These people believe in spirits and 'clouds' of evil. They are either seen as schizophrenic by psychiatry, or attention seeking. Whilst i'm undecided about religion, i know that people should know some moral values. Yet why should the poor be judged by the rich. If someone is angry, extremely angry, and wants to try change the system or draw attention to it, in any other way than the conventional, which people would ignore, they are labelled as crack pots. Anyway, thats me out for now. Please discuss.

Well, the problem being that it'd be easier for the disadvantaged to buy into alcohol, which may fuel their anger/ambition for/against the class system.

But ignoring my own marxist theory, i'll take a more moderate view.

Alcohol is a DRUG. It affects the brain and body. Too much is dangerous, too little is harmless.

Now, just for this case i'll ignore the issue of drug legislation.

The law of 'being' 18 in the UK to buy alcohol does not prevent 15 year olds, and in some cases and areas, younger from buying alcohol here. You have to 'look' 18. Which means that your physical appearance has developed to the point of other people accepting that you look 18. Now, does this mean that someone in the areas of 21 limit is correct? No.

Within Europe, the laws vary but the best example i find is France, unfortunately :P.
14 and older it is ok to drink beer. I think its either 18 or 21 overall, as different shops will have different policies, before someone can purchase spirits.
In theory, this policy, this practice prevents the young from nuking their bodies, and learning social limits of behaviour for within their friendship group.
However, the youth culture of rebellion means teenagers still take it a bit too far, not in all cases, maybe not many, i cant say, i've never been there.

The other part of the issue is, is tthe law of 21 harsh and unfair in the US? Specially given the points raised, that you have to be 18 to do all the important things you can do.
The only logical reason i can think of is so that people feel naughty and enjoy their wilder years more, and attribute it to alcohol, so that they enjoy drinking more

A point to note, i may have slight ill will towards alcohol itself, due to the fact that its caused me injury. This is because i drank too much, too young and regret it. I accept that i am in the minority that suffer illness this early in youth, but it is still an issue.

Drinking can be fun and educational, but no-ones life's only pursuit should be to drink.
Drink can destroy lives, and is not a toy for the weak of mind to try on their own, or in undesirable company.

The drinking age limits prevent decadence to an extent, just by the fact they exist.
The limits can only change as people change...

At 3/13/05 06:36 PM, Kieland wrote: Did you just sit down one day and cook that up? That is one hell of a conspiracy theory. "We have no democracy... We are all serving the rich... We are all caught in the Matrix..." God, I hope you aren't right. That would really suck if it were true...

My theory is based on Marxist theory, and my observations of the world. The poor are dying, the rich openly admit that previous people became rich by the theft of the resources of the world, ie, look at historical teachings for conquests of other countries, notably by the United Kingdom, around the era of Queen Victoria. It does suck, and it is true, but people are kept in this bubble. Anyone who opposes the values of system is labelled into the same category as those who commit senseless crimes and violence. These people get called criminal or insane, and are arrested, and they are used as examples by which to control society. Alternatively, they are allowed to exist in society to preserve the image of democracy. The system controls all, and yet it can be overthrown, but only by mass revolution. The entire world needs to take the exactly right moment, the right mix of circumstances.

Notice how a lot of people with the label of being "mental" or "headcases" often do not want to work, and talk about the system being against them, and that there is a huge conspiracy?

Of course, the many with some wealth and power, the middle classes look down on those with 'extreme' left opinions, as it doesnt fit with their views of desiring many material goods.

A lot of human lives and effort to improve the race is lost during capitalism, for those who look a little more unhumanly and objectively. People who can work and are willing to work in circumstances like the west are shunned. Even those who want to help have to do so out of their own money, and many of the richest dont. For example, whilst bill gates etc give money to charity, how many of the extremely loaded would willingly give everything they've got to help a small country? Many people die, and the rich do nothing to help. Their moral decreptitude causes mass death.

Since enslavement is still ongoing, and people are never getting the fair share, the rich should be blamed entirely, as those who would help the cause will never be able to reveal themselves, ever.

You need money to live well, which means the pursuit of money is a choice. Slavery negates the possibility of a choice of what you wish to do. Therefor work is not enslavement, if you can choose not to work. The fact that unemployment is undesireable is not a sign that you have to work.

And do what?

Third, you have committed a great political mistake. You have attacked an existing system without suggesting an alternative. You claimed the government was created by the rich to protect them from the poor. As I pointed out (and you inadvertantly pointed out), the rich are powerless in anarchy. Government pre-dates wealth. Even if you were correct, however, you offered no alternative system and no way to transition into it.

No other system should be considered until the selfish rich are smashed from their murderous luxury.

The rich have too much money/power/whatever, correct? All right, well how much is enough? How do you get the money/power/whatever evenly distributed? All you've done is anonymously attacked your perception of a system. Getting the message out is not a virtue unto itself.

Its the only thing possible until the people are ready.

Fourth, what is it you think money is? Money isn't money. Money is human activity. Without human activity, money is worthless. The more constraints there are on activity (Communism: beaurocracy, rationing Capitalism: gentry [idle rich], moronic laws benefitting large companies), the more harm you do to society.

Money is exploited. The people who's ancestors were robbed of their gold and lives and other resources get told and taught that these shiny tokens are fair exchange for their loss.

Productivity, investment, scheming, and all those things you think are horrible that the rich do create activity. They create jobs. Greed, when not allowed to crush competiton with anything but competiton, is a great thing. The reason Communism will always be a failure is that it stifles activity by limitting who gets to decide how to manage it. Communism can't take the same risks as Capitalism, and likewise can't reap the same benefits.

Greed, as a sin, is never good. Do you think only capitalists have aspirations to improve themselves and humanity?

The reality is, we'll always need active rich people. The market size demands we have people who control vast amounts of money, because they can deploy it over a greater area than normal people. Get rid of the rich, new rich people will rise. Even in Communism, you'll have the rich; they'll simply be called something else. People with power who use it to gain more power are rich, even if the concept of money never existed.

We need clever, active people who want to benefit society. They should be given enough that they can do their job and enjoy it, without causing death of people in society.

At 3/13/05 05:07 PM, airraid81 wrote:

At 3/13/05 04:46 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

Yet, the work is not made humane. People work in situations in different countries making things for us for shit wages. The west makes a huge profit, couple this with the fact that the "1st World" is built on slavery, and we raped the resources of country's all over the world. We stole their resources and make them work like dogs to get a shitty fraction back. They fuled our world, they should have a much greater say in what goes on.

How did we "rape the resources of country's all over the world?" You must be talking about how we go into other countries such as Iraq to get rid of dictators.

Ignorance. Again. Black Slavery? Ever heard of it? The UK was involved too, when it owned 3/4 of the world. Saddam is part of the capitalist machine. Whats the difference between A psychotic madman who values oil and wealth and the American Government? The number.

Too much money = too much power and luxury at the expense of other people's lives.

All this shit about giving people "charity". We should overthrow the system so that these people can have what they want. But people are enslaved in western society into these evil values, and double standards. Do you ever look at another country, and feel guilty, then carry on your day and enjoy your shit without even caring who its made by?

Not everyone deserves the same amount of money. If you work hard and do a good job, then you will make more money. You can talk all you want about how rich CEOs and executives can live richly and not do much work, but they have one of the hardest jobs. They have to make tough business decisions that effect the entire company. If it was really so easy to have their job, then there would be more people with that job and they would be making less money.

Indeed, there needs to be some hierarchy, but why should the rich thieve from the poor then cry when the labourers want their share?

If so, this is why "terrorists" target the west. I do not condone muder and violence, but the atrocities the rich commit on the poor are murder. Someone dies in africa every three seconds, that could be prevented. In the first world we are the honey and the sting. They want it, rightfully in many cases.

The USA has nothing to do with whats happening in Africa. The corrupt governments in Africa are responsible for the atrocities, not the US. We are separated by an ocean, and we do not have any say in what happens over there. We cannot do much to help them, because we already have our military in Iraq, and even if we brought it to Africa to help out over there, you would probably be one of the first people bitching about how "Bush is trying to take over the world."

I semi agree with your prediction. Bush is a puppet of the system that owns the world.

Never look just in this lifetime. The system has been about long before you or i were born. It cant be known how old it is.

First, the USSR, China, North Korea, and Cuba are all examples of Communist or formerly Communist nations. If you're going to claim they aren't because they weren't pure Communism, that's fine. There are no purely Capitalist nations, so if purity is an issue you have no examples of the evils of capitalism. How so? I'll explain.

They were parts of the capitalist machine, created to discredit communism. There is no other state than capitalism allowed in this society. What little sharing natures or attempts to change the situation are taken account of and mostly repressed.

Competition is the key, most important part of capitalistic society. Monopolies, multi-national corporations, software patents, and large portions of the DMCA go against the nature of capitalism. Monopolies crush free trade, sell their goods under market value, and abuse competitors. Multi-national corporations rob workers of opportunities and are able to choke off competiton within their 1st-world nations. Software pattents are a warped version of pattents, and allow companies with money a legal way to steal the work of a competitor and then sue the inventor for selling their invention. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) robs people of the right to make competing peripherals for any existing product utilizing encryption.

Cant argue. It happens

Therefor, you cannot play the, "Oh, they weren't pure Communist nations" Card. If you do, you cannot site any example from post-Industrial history for examples of capitalist evil, because pure Capitalism ceased to exist after industrialization.

How can capitalism not exist after industrialization? That implies that after the creation of machines and technological advances, the rich ceased to rob the poor.

Second, what is all this nonsense I am hearing about enslavement? No one in this country is legally enslaved. If you hate your job, you can quit. Oh, but you will rightfully point out that people need money. Working for money, however, is not enslavement. If no one worked, humanity would be wiped out. Working to live is part of nature. Therefor working to live is not enslavement. Technically you don't need money to live; plenty of people scavenge to survive.

ARROGANCE. NARROWMINDEDNESS. Not many are obviously shackled by irons in the west, tho some illegal immigrants will work in appalling conditions. This is because they try to escape their country, where the real slavery takes place. The corporations give people mere minimal wages to live on, and yet these people create everything, do they have power? No, the western corporations work with the dictatorship governments to make them work. People who see through this system of thievery of peoples lives fight back and are called terrorists, or freedom fighters. But its always seen that they want freedom and to be greedy and take the country, when in many cases they see through the system. This portraying of them as terrorists leads to other countries shunning them, making it easier to crack down upon them.

Only mass revolution by the people can cause a change in this system, as has been shown in the history books, the kings need the peasants to do the labour, and will never kill them all.

You need money to live well, which means the pursuit of money is a choice. Slavery negates the possibility of a choice of what you wish to do. Therefor work is not enslavement, if you can choose not to work. The fact that unemployment is undesireable is not a sign that you have to work.

Yet, the work is not made humane. People work in situations in different countries making things for us for shit wages. The west makes a huge profit, couple this with the fact that the "1st World" is built on slavery, and we raped the resources of country's all over the world. We stole their resources and make them work like dogs to get a shitty fraction back. They fuled our world, they should have a much greater say in what goes on.

Third, you have committed a great political mistake. You have attacked an existing system without suggesting an alternative. You claimed the government was created by the rich to protect them from the poor. As I pointed out (and you inadvertantly pointed out), the rich are powerless in anarchy. Government pre-dates wealth. Even if you were correct, however, you offered no alternative system and no way to transition into it.

The rich have too much money/power/whatever, correct? All right, well how much is enough? How do you get the money/power/whatever evenly distributed? All you've done is anonymously attacked your perception of a system. Getting the message out is not a virtue unto itself.

Too much money = too much power and luxury at the expense of other people's lives.
All this shit about giving people "charity". We should overthrow the system so that these people can have what they want. But people are enslaved in western society into these evil values, and double standards. Do you ever look at another country, and feel guilty, then carry on your day and enjoy your shit without even caring who its made by?

If so, this is why "terrorists" target the west. I do not condone muder and violence, but the atrocities the rich commit on the poor are murder. Someone dies in africa every three seconds, that could be prevented. In the first world we are the honey and the sting. They want it, rightfully in many cases.

At 3/12/05 09:25 AM, Denvish wrote: ParagonX9

I know hes good, just not listened to all his tracks yet. I take it it doesnt tell you on the page who's written the loop thats playing?

At 3/12/05 09:19 AM, Grandfather-Clock wrote: stop listening through yer eyes and start lookin wit yo ears bwoy

Lol you're probably right, i'm probably just being a retard. My only excuse is that it was friday yesterday :)

is playing on the audio page when you enter it? Theres a sample i want to ask an artist about but i dont know how to find out who it is :S I'm aware that it changes every time you search, but i've heard this sick videogame type trance/techno and i want to praise the artist and at least download the track even if they wont let me sample it.

At 3/10/05 06:39 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 3/10/05 01:56 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: I dare you to try argue my point down, and give me clear cut examples of where i'm wrong.

Respond to my last post on the previous page, before you start 'daring' people to prove you wrong.

Sorry, been away, had issues of newgrounds and real life. I'll debate with you properly after some sleep.

At 3/10/05 02:07 PM, darklad wrote:

At 3/10/05 01:56 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: stuff

one of the best posts i've read in a long, long time

LOL thanks. Feel free to ask for more or tell me to STFU, eithers good :)

At 2/16/05 07:45 AM, Professor_Burgees wrote: To Spamwarrior:
I think someone's been reading a bit too much 1984. Go outside for a bit, get a bit of air...

I go outside, and i see a world that sickens me. A world where people are oppressed, and the lazy rich do nothing but doss around and go to champagne parties. People dare to complain and be racist about ethnic minorities thieving "our" money and benefits. Our countries were built on slave labour, and the oppression continues.
The ruling class keep control by constantly changing the rules, and creating bullshit like Fashion, and the false belief that greed for greeds sake is good. Of course, right wing tools of the capitalist system will say, oh, how can you see this, if the system is in control. To that i'll say, how can you not see the real outside world? To answer my own question, the rich capitalists have FULL control of the media, education, and the entire machinery of government. Who'd ever really let a poor man run the country?

Yes, we need a system where the geniuses in society are allowed to flourish, but the system is racist, sexist, classist, and divides the working class from each other. Working class are separated from each other into Left, and Right, by the false idea that there is a democracy. They give us our primary learning and socialisation, so why would we know anything else? Anyone that gives an opposition view to the wrongs of capitalism is branded as a lunatic or given ridicule, by their peers and the state.

I dont even know why i write these rants really, i guess i'm trying to find others who are willing to tell people the truth of how harsh life is. IE, in America, people blame Mexicans and Vietnamese for stealing their jobs. These people get barely a living wage in most cases if these Corporations like Nike are in their country of origin. It is comparable to Victorian sweatshops. Yet of course, you bullshit 'Right' people take in the views that the government must be right, because these people are successful at a system most of us will never measure up to. How is it right that people can die of starvation, yet still have jobs? Its not like they are lazy, no. And the unbending naive arrogance of the west on the whole, and the USA in particular, specifically the so called middle class, should be changed, as they dont even fit in with their own moral codes. If you are of any religion, the main morals overall are
Dont Kill
Dont Steal
The R\C take what they want, and if it means taking people's lives, its easy. It'd be slightly more difficult, but if the government doesn't have power to make it appear that people never existed, who does? Anyway, this is probably a long dead topic, but since i believe the topic to be part of the ongoing war against the evils of capitalism, i think it should never be locked, ever. Capitalism does have it's good points, it causes some technological advancement, but at the expense of our souls. The system makes us work for other people, for a shit amount of what they earn. Why should those who cant put in physical or beneficial mental labour rule the world?

I dare you to try argue my point down, and give me clear cut examples of where i'm wrong.

Indeed, the countries of Asia and Africa are the enslaved. China, under the false guise of communism, was created in an attempt to shame it, to show the world the capitalism is the only way. The people in these countries make a lot of what the far richer countries in the world use, yet it is also they who have the higher death rates and lower literacy skills. Perhaps the crush of the intellectuals under "communism" in China shows that the ruling class do not like thinkers, do not want they're wrongful way of life exposing for the greed it is.

Indeed technology is necessary, but under consumer culture we are like a virus. We consume the worlds resources willingly which the ruling class feed us. They hold the knowledge and the power. People under the oppression could be great geniuses held back by the system because they reject the system and see through it. Imagine all the possible genii there could be, unknown to themselves or others. In a truly democratic communist state, sure there could be some replication of consumer culture, such as music. The point being that people who are naturals to their job will find their job, not be forced into one where they dont fit until their spirit breaks.

I've received an abusive review for it, claiming i didnt write it. Fair enough i didnt write the original tracks, but i sliced and remixed them. So i'd like to remove the track and resubmit it with the word REMIX in capitals if possible. If not, i guess it'll go to the grave in its own time....

At 2/14/05 11:32 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 2/14/05 10:54 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 2/14/05 10:28 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

The point i'm really trying to make, is that the people who do the work are far more important than the people in government who take their money off them and give it to the rich.

No, the blue collar is no more important than any other profession. This country needs everyone, equally. The construction worker, the data imputer, and the politician are equally important. There needs to be a sect of society which governs the other sects. Otherwise, it wouldn't be orderly, or efficient, at all.

why do we need the people that steal the money from the poor and give it to the rich? The rich have more than enough. But of course, americans never understand the concept of enough.

I am a dosser, and willing to admit to it. I dont do manual labour, though of course i respect its importance. I have many friends in the building trades, tho they are starting at the bottom.

Most people start at the bottom, whether you're an office worker, or an electrician. Most people don't just start out in a high paying, enjoyable job. Even the politician goes to law school, and serves in several public official positions

Yet daddys little girls and boys in the rich familys start with an ALLOWANCE of at least a thousand a week, blown on drugs and consumer culture. Never mind for when they get given a job a better person could have done...

I think teachers are getting paid what they deserve.

Maybe in America. Never over here. Either that or we need more happy teachers :)

How much (approx.) does a teacher in your country make, anually?

No idea, sorry.

Sure, I could see you having that opinion. But that doesn't mean the system is 'designed' to keep the middle class man down. That's a huge leap of conclusions.

Thats just it, its not about keeping the middle class down, its about keeping them placid. Who is really oppressed, are the working class. I dont mean insult to your firm, well actually, sorry ido. You're firm as you've said operates for profit. Whilst i'm only assuming that good workers arent made partners, you can see why i think that good workers dont get given a share.

When it comes to blue-collar, you literally reap what you sow. The harder I'm willing to work, and the more hours I put in, the more money I make. Period. It's totally up to me, when it comes to how much money I make, and how hard i'm willing to work. THAT'S my share. It's not guaranteed, no...and it shouldn't be. But that oppurtunity is there.

Yes, and people like you who want to work are exploited by the system for their own benefits. You have the protection of your own family firm, and you seek the same values as the ruling groups. This means you are a tool of the rich, to make them richer. Even if you're family became the richest in the world, it would change nothing, you would become the next leaders of the system.

They get told they are lucky to have a job, and if they dont like it tough, someone else'll have the job.

And that's completely true. That's why a company, in the blue collar business, must be exceptional. That means the lowest bids, and the highest quality work. As I've said, I get paid based on job performance.

Yes, and so you seek to give the lowest bid for the best work, when capitalism alledgedly rewards the people that do the hardest and most skillful work.

Our company, Superior Interiors, has a Satisfaction of Quality guarantee. Our policy is that after we finish a job, if a contractor is not happy with it, we'll come back, as many days as we have to, to finish the job...all for free.
And, seeing as how that situation would deal a financial blow from hell to our business, we NEVER, once, had to act on that guarantee.
In the world of expendable jobs, one must be exceptionally good at a given trade. This is how money is made. It's not equal oppurtunity. If you can't cut it, there is no training program. There are very few second chances. A mistake on a job site costs someone money. A lack of safety costs someone OSHA fines.

True, if someone has no inherent skill whatsoever, they cannot be trained. But it all comes down to costing someone money. If someone cant do it, they shouldnt be there. Thats it/.

So people are being underpaid by capitalism. I dont doubt that if you were taxed less, and were stopped from lining corruptions pockets, then sure, your workers would be paid even more. Or perhaps your firm'd take the extra profit?

The main components of this company would take that extra profit, yes. My immediate family is who runs it...everyone else that comes and goes are expendable employees. We run the company, we reap the most benefits. But, I suppose you'd call that greed.

Greed caused by the need for your business to survive, as i assume its a limited firm as its a family one.

People learn these values on the basis that this is the way that its always been. Not so, theres tribes in the amazon perfectly happy with the world until they saw our inventions. So now they learn to crave material goods, which they had no interest in before.

And that makes material goods 'wrong'?

The point i was making is that these people didnt know anything, and didnt want anything. Since they've seen the most basic of goods, they want in. This shows they learned their values from society. A roundabout way i admit, but it was the only way i could try and tell you.

It wasn't some CEO's greedy decision that made the boss-man stiff us...it was one guy who couldn't do payroll and bookeeping to save his fucking life.

So you believe. You cant prove either way, and a CEO certainly wouldnt want to admit to that.

Well, if a company isn't a corporation, then it has no CEO. Duh.

You've lost me there.

Well i know old people get treated like shit in many care homes, so i wouldnt be that surprised if they were what we call cowboy builders.

Should I...know what a cowboy builder is?

I dont know why they're called cowboys, tho some of them do wear the hats. They are the enterprising scum that create extra jobs for themselves, as they do others for a 'knockdown' price.

At 2/14/05 11:00 PM, jmaster306 wrote: If it's such a problem, write it all out, then copy half into one text box, submit, the put the rest in another. That way it won't be too disrupted.

LOL cheers. I apologize for my n00bishness. But only on technological grounds. :) Anyone wants to call me a n00b cos of my beliefs, well, there'll be a battle there :)

Does anyone else think that the limit is too short for proper political debates? If NG could increase it by just 100 i would be greatful, as i have to keep dumbing down and cutting down my arguments, making my position as a marxist in this capitalist world even more shakey. Oh well, i doubt it'll happen, but i can hope.

At 2/14/05 10:28 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

... (apologies but i have to crop the file so it fits, so it may seem i'm talking into random air)

The point i'm really trying to make, is that the people who do the work are far more important than the people in government who take their money off them and give it to the rich.

:Webuild retail stores, which are commercial and economic hubs :for small communities. We've worked on VA hospitals, and :VDOT (Virginia Department of Trasportation) buildings. If we :were getting paid, based on the impact our work has....I'd :make twice as much.

No, my pay is based off job difficulty/job skill, and hours on the job.

"comments on teachers pay here"

I am a dosser, and willing to admit to it. I dont do manual labour, though of course i respect its importance. I have many friends in the building trades, tho they are starting at the bottom.

I think teachers are getting paid what they deserve.

Maybe in America. Never over here. Either that or we need more happy teachers :)

"making the rich richer"

Lets see, in america, tax cuts for the rich. Whilst i'm no economist this is unfair.

Sure, I could see you having that opinion. But that doesn't mean the system is 'designed' to keep the middle class man down. That's a huge leap of conclusions.

Thats just it, its not about keeping the middle class down, its about keeping them placid. Who is really oppressed, are the working class. I dont mean insult to your firm, well actually, sorry ido. You're firm as you've said operates for profit. Whilst i'm only assuming that good workers arent made partners, you can see why i think that good workers dont get given a share. They get told they are lucky to have a job, and if they dont like it tough, someone else'll have the job. So people are being underpaid by capitalism. I dont doubt that if you were taxed less, and were stopped from lining corruptions pockets, then sure, your workers would be paid even more. Or perhaps your firm'd take the extra profit?

Natural? All anyone ever naturally wants is to eat, drink, shit and be warm and healthy. Society teaches us everything else.

But, if the oppurtunity exists (which it does), and the desire arises to pursue that path is allowed...that makes it a right. If not natural, then axiomatic. It doesn't have to be written down to be a 'right'.

True, but the capitalist way is taught in more than words, its taught through society. People learn these values on the basis that this is the way that its always been. Not so, theres tribes in the amazon perfectly happy with the world until they saw our inventions. So now they learn to crave material goods, which they had no interest in before.

Yes, you have to survive corporate nastiness. You are surviving the ruling class trying to pwn you down even more. That is marxism, tho not communism

Most construction companies aren't 'big corporations'.

Agreed.

They are owned, usually, by an individual, or partnership, who built the company up from the bottom. And most construction companies aren't even 'big', in the context of using the phrase 'big business'. Most construction companies cover half a dozen states, at most.

Still larger than your average corner shop eh, even if you have them in america. :) but yes, this comes into an earlier post. Eventually, down the generations you will have a fat cat executive who doesnt give a shit about the shop floor, who just wants a fat cheque to keep things the way they are.

It wasn't some CEO's greedy decision that made the boss-man stiff us...it was one guy who couldn't do payroll and bookeeping to save his fucking life.

So you believe. You cant prove either way, and a CEO certainly wouldnt want to admit to that.

Now, if you want to root out the 'corporate nastiness' at it's roots, take a look into companies that specialize in Remediation. Particular the remediation companies that do repairs to hospitals, and retirement homes. I could tell you horror stories about a company called USA Remediations, that you wouldn't even believe.

Well i know old people get treated like shit in many care homes, so i wouldnt be that surprised if they were what we call cowboy builders.

Money is the root of class division. Money isnt worth anything itself, just the material goods it can be exchanged with.

Exactly. It gets us everything we want, and need.

Money for things we need, is terse. The rich can be guaranteed to never die for want of things they need. If there was a worldwide drought, all the "toffs" have enough to share between them to survive. That would be a nice irony. Money for things we want, well i'm not certain on my view of material goods, as i like the buddhist beliefs.

The rich have more than enough of both, and do not need any more.

But, who are you to decide a man has made enough money? Who are you to tell a man he's had enough of the American Dream, and he just needs to cry off? How is that fair?

Who are you to just decide that a mans poor, and its all his own fault, and not just a man, but many nations poor, whilst america and the richer parts of europe grow from what they stole from other people? Why should the richest seek world domination?

We can't all be rich. Nothing would get done like that. We NEED construction workers, and janitors, and teachers.

Fuck being rich, being even would be nice.

:: : Indeed.
What, exactly, is greed? Is it making more money than you need? Is it always wanting to make more, no matter how much you have?

I can tell you I'm no different. If I won the 400 million dollar lottery tomorrow... .. I'd invest that money into our family business, and expand it. I'd make it so I never had to actually work construction again, but the company filled my bank account, every week.
Not only that, I'd invest a huge amount of that money, so I could make MORE money. And this process would continue, until I died.

Is that greed? Or seeking happiness?

I I apologise, but yes, greed. Unless of course you would plan to help the people that made the "west" a fuckload of money in free labour.
Also, if you're looking for happiness until you're dead, you're looking in the wrong way.

At 2/14/05 09:21 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 2/14/05 09:09 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 2/14/05 08:40 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 2/14/05 08:25 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 2/14/05 07:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: And, I pay for electricity, right? My money goes to power companies, who's sole purpose is to make as much money as they can, in the shortest amount of time possible. Their motivation is greed, and the result of that greed is my house being warm, and my lights being on, and having a stove.
Greed is nasty, but it makes things run. It's why every corporation, every business ever started. It's why every product, that you buy and enjoy, was invented.

I've snipped out your later bit about tech improvements, i'll address it here.
Money DOES NOT = Intellectual riches
Money can buy you books, but it cannot make you read.

No, but money directly creates teachers, who DO teach people to read. First, there's the money it costs to go to school, to get the credentials to be a teacher. Then there's the cost of the school hiring a particular teacher, on a particular salary.

Education, is an interesting topic. If someones heart is truly in teaching, what do they want massive home comforts for?

So, because someone dedicates their life to a 'good cause', such as educating our young...they shouldn't desire the same benefits that everyone else gets, from their earnings? Just because someone is a teacher...they're not entitled to the same comforts as the construction worker, or the CEO?
How does that even make sense?

Indeed. Why is the CEO getting more than a teacher? Surely not as many people would miss a CEO if they died...

My girlfriend is a substitute teacher at an elementary school. Does she not deserve the comforts her money has bought?

Again, people have been brought up to have comforts and not think about the system. She is entitled to whatever she likes. What about the people who made all this possible? They are still being oppressed today.

A system of renumeration and giving someone something in exchange for some time = fair enough. Giving the rich people even more money for being rich = not fair enough.

What are you speaking of, specifically? What particular means of 'making the rich richer' are you speaking of?

Lets see, in america, tax cuts for the rich. Whilst i'm no economist this is unfair. And even if you could quote chapter and verse regarding economics, it is yet another part of the system.

Almost averything can be traced back to money, in one form or another.

Does that mean its right?

Of course not. That just means that's the way the world works.

No. I'm saying that if someone starts a business, or a service...they aren't doing it because it feels good. Unless it's some kind of non-profit organization, or charity...they're in it for the profit.

Exactly. Profit. Profit = Power. In a slippery market poeple fight to hold their own personal power, and social power. Sometimes benevolent, sometimes not.

And I encourage this. It's your natural, inherant right to make as much money as possible. It's your right to gain as many possessions as you can, if that's what you choose.

Natural? All anyone ever naturally wants is to eat, drink, shit and be warm and healthy. Society teaches us everything else.

Profit and possession is what started this country. It's how Columbus found this country. It's what has attracted millions and millions of immagrants, over the years. It's what drove us to explore and chart the west, and eventually settle it.

True.

My family owns a construction business. Do you think we work construction out of the kindness of our heart? If you do, you're sadly mistaken. We work for profit. There's been times that we've taken a job for a shitty boss-man, who jipped us on our checks...and we walked off the job.
Now, I guess you can say we're not looking out for the 'greater good' because we didn't finish the job for free, right?

Nah, i can say you werent slaving your time away working for the lowest price for the ruling class, and that you are in fact a communist hero, tho i doubt you'd like that.

We quit the job out of greed, one could say. It was money, or bust. We are not concerned with the boss-man's job, or the good of the community. We are concerned with our own wallets. That's not communism. That's capitilism.

Yes, you have to survive corporate nastiness. You are surviving the ruling class trying to pwn you down even more. That is marxism, tho not communism

I niether want, or need an army. I work for money, and money gets me the things I need, and want. It buys my food, and allows me access to the internet, and various other things. My paycheck directly affects my survival. No paycheck means no rent money, or other bill money. No paycheck means no gas for the vehicle.
Why wouldn't I love money? What kind of people ''hate'' money?

Money the object? No one i guess. Money for what it stands for? More people than i can guess. I know i'm not alone.

Money stands for ownership. Your money buys you land. Money buys this country's oil. Money gives you a post office. Money makes the import/export economy work. Money gave you your job, and gave your boss his job. Money was the root of the internet.

Money is the root of class division. Money isnt worth anything itself, just the material goods it can be exchanged with. The rich have more than enough of both, and do not need any more. They are spoiling and losing whatever is left of their humanity the longer it goes on for. They exist simply, to exist. And neglect to think about the repercussions on other people.

Just what about money, or it's symbolizatoin, are you against? I think you mean you're against greed...not money.

Indeed.

It's silly.

A system of exploitation, based on an earlier system of exploitation, is beyond fucking ridiculous.

And yet, it runs our country.

By proxy, it makes your country ridiculuous, and mine. And most other places. I statement i'm more than inclined to agree with, even tho i'm not happy about it.

At 2/14/05 09:12 PM, NotYouZ wrote:

At 2/14/05 07:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote: That 'greed' that you seem to dislike, so much, is what runs this country. The want for more, and better, keeps things rolling.

I didn't mean disatisfaction is bad. Fuck, if we were so easily pleased, we wouldn't have made it past the stone age. I'm talking about GREED. When that desire for more gets out of hand. When you are willing to do anything to get money, even at the expense of others.

Capitalism in itself isn't a bad system, but if we don't put a cap on it things could get ugly. We have to restrict how rich (and powerful) businesses and individual people get. We can't just let them have the money rolling in nonstop. This is one of the reasons I'm firmly against tax cuts for the rich, and maybe even even a tax increase. They can't just have all the money and power they want. We have to control it. Even more so than we are now.

I agree to an extent. Sometimes people are rich for good reasons, decent inventions, these people should be kept alive by the state at the very least. Though i think the realy really rich should take the week/fortnight street meditation class done by this guy in new york. Its living in cardboard boxes on the street pretty much, and living the life of the lowest. It helps people gain empathy and also appreciate more what they have.

At 2/14/05 08:40 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

At 2/14/05 08:25 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 2/14/05 07:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:

MARIJUANA GROWS ON TREES WHY SHOULD YOU PAY FOR IT.

Hey, that's a good way to gain respect.

Yes, i seek respect from capitalist lackets of the state. I clearly seek approval from you, and i am now bowled over that you destroyed by argument with such elan and wit.

And, I pay for electricity, right? My money goes to power companies, who's sole purpose is to make as much money as they can, in the shortest amount of time possible. Their motivation is greed, and the result of that greed is my house being warm, and my lights being on, and having a stove.
Greed is nasty, but it makes things run. It's why every corporation, every business ever started. It's why every product, that you buy and enjoy, was invented.

I've snipped out your later bit about tech improvements, i'll address it here.
Money DOES NOT = Intellectual riches
Money can buy you books, but it cannot make you read.

No, but money directly creates teachers, who DO teach people to read. First, there's the money it costs to go to school, to get the credentials to be a teacher. Then there's the cost of the school hiring a particular teacher, on a particular salary.

Education, is an interesting topic. If someones heart is truly in teaching, what do they want massive home comforts for? anyway, teachers are part of the ISA as much as anything else. Many of them know it and will never say. A system of renumeration and giving someone something in exchange for some time = fair enough. Giving the rich people even more money for being rich = not fair enough. Its silly. The money that you work for in one factory, ends up spent on another company's produce, keeping you part of the system. Whereas, if the workers had an equal share in what they produced, i'm pretty sure they'd be at least 25% richer, and thats just in the richer nations. The true workers, the peoples who slaved years ago and now have nothing, would at least be a world power, if not our leaders. Shame the white ruling class are scared of foreigners.

Almost averything can be traced back to money, in one form or another.

Does that mean its right? The impulse to murder will eventually traced back to the human genome, does that mean its ok?

No. Some people want simply to make the world a better place, but you're isolated view wont let you see that. Are you telling me that ALL people are exactly the same?

No. I'm saying that if someone starts a business, or a service...they aren't doing it because it feels good. Unless it's some kind of non-profit organization, or charity...they're in it for the profit.

Exactly. Profit. Profit = Power. In a slippery market poeple fight to hold their own personal power, and social power. Sometimes benevolent, sometimes not.

My family owns a construction business. Do you think we work construction out of the kindness of our heart? If you do, you're sadly mistaken. We work for profit. There's been times that we've taken a job for a shitty boss-man, who jipped us on our checks...and we walked off the job.

Now, I guess you can say we're not looking out for the 'greater good' because we didn't finish the job for free, right?

Nah, i can say you werent slaving your time away working for the lowest price for the ruling class, and that you are in fact a communist hero, tho i doubt you'd like that.

Loving money, and it's affect, doesn't make one evil, neccessarily.

No, but it makes you an apathetic tool of the ruling class. They have even more home comforts than you, and an army to look after it with, and to take yours if they want. Wheres your army?

I niether want, or need an army. I work for money, and money gets me the things I need, and want. It buys my food, and allows me access to the internet, and various other things. My paycheck directly affects my survival. No paycheck means no rent money, or other bill money. No paycheck means no gas for the vehicle.
Why wouldn't I love money? What kind of people ''hate'' money?

Money the object? No one i guess. Money for what it stands for? More people than i can guess. I know i'm not alone.

It's silly.

A system of exploitation, based on an earlier system of exploitation, is beyond fucking ridiculous.

I'm something else. Other's call me communist, libertarian, pussy etc. Here are my values, should you care to try pigeonhole me
1) Marxist - we are ruled by the government, not in our own best interests
2)Unsure on abortion because of
3) not sure about religion
4) tho i support the death penalty for primitve murderers, who kill just out of a liking to kill
and rapists because... well there arent any good reason for them to live
5) I believe in gun control in an ideal world, but since that would hamper revolution, i cant believe in it yet
6) I believe many drugs should be legal, and above all, cheaper, Theres no good reason to pay ridiculous amounts for what nature provides, althought i do believe that some of what nature provides is dangerous, such as heroin and cocaine. Heroin should be legal in an ideal world, as no one would want such a hard drug to get addicted to, and it is social issues that force people into drugs. But thats a whole can of worms for another thread
7) I am a paradox on music. I am against piracy if it stops me from living my ideal livelihood, but if people wouldnt buy the things they download anyway i dont see it doing much harm. And whilst i love metallica's music, they dont need the money they thought they weere losing on downloads. If they were, they shouldnt have lived the rock n roll life to excess then become lackeys of the state.

So where am i then? i'm not your traditional anything as far as i can tell

Long live SpamWarriorism WOOT! lol yeah right....

Actually, after reading the rules....

At 2/14/05 08:43 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 2/14/05 08:42 PM, Nike_Dunk wrote:

At 2/14/05 08:40 PM, CorpseFucker wrote: Ghey.

Hahaha, you're heterosexual.

His name is CopseFucker, he's obviously a necrophilliac.

I used to be a necrophiliac once but then the rotten cunt split on me

At 2/14/05 08:42 PM, Nike_Dunk wrote:

At 2/14/05 08:41 PM, BazzMann wrote:

At 2/14/05 08:40 PM, CorpseFucker wrote: Ghey.

Hahaha, you're heterosexual.

His name is CopseFucker, he's obviously a necrophilliac.

I used to be necrophiliac once, and if i finish this joke i'm getting banned....

At 2/14/05 07:41 PM, commanderkai wrote: Sorry I forgot to say this in my last post.

To SpamWarrior:

Let's say your revolution did happen in *picks random Western World country* Canada. What would happen to all the people who didn't support it? Will you allow them to leave, even though they are your educated and skilled workers that the country needs to survive? Will you try to convince them to stay? If you try to convince them, yet very few if any want to stay, will you force them to stay? Will you threaten them and their families? Will you throw them into "reeducation centres" (better known as concentration camps)?

If i was actually a leader of a country in the aftermath of a revolution, which is incredibly unlikely, i would act in a relatively benevolent manner. Though your point is appreciated, that not everyone would... Anyway, if all these skillful people left, all we'd need is a few and the internet, and we could learn everything we wanted. But of course, if it was canada as soon as it became communist the US would bomb it or at least cut off the internet, causing intellectual starvation, and yet again, capitalist revolution. You think the usa couldnt cut off a fledgling communist states internet after all the skilled people have left? then you cant give me shit for having issues with reality.

At 2/14/05 08:03 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Globalization plays a factor. Check out the other thread.

I can see where this argument is going.

I've been there before.

I do not wish to waste my time repeating it.

Have a nice day.

"globalization" meaning technological developments around the world, yes that is relevant to capitalism. It now means that in places where religion was the ISA, it is now the media. Thank you for reminding me.