Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well, while Germany was under the control of the National Socialist Party its people became very prejudiced against number of ethnic groups.

At 5/3/04 07:58 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 5/3/04 07:54 PM, The_General_Public wrote: But If we did repeal the patriot act and we had a suicide-bombing on American soil, I would gladly be on that bus or on that bus or on that plane if it meant our nation's freedoms would be preserved.

*massive eye rolling*

Hey, we're on the same side here, ok? I just don't care how effective the Patriot act is. I don't think any terrorist organization has the power to invade and take away our freedom. I DO think the federal government has the power to do that. I'm more afraid of the Patriot Act than I am of a nuclear attack on a major city. The reason I said I would gladly be a victim of a terrorist attack is because I want to show that I'm not some heartless jerk that would rather have thousands of people die than have to file some extra-paperwork. I'm saying that in a hypothetical situation, I would rather terrorists kill ME than have the entire country's freedom taken away via the patriot act and anything that follows it.

oops, wrong kitten,

Look what you just did...

There's a lot to consider. What really hurts this country more? Terrorist bombs? or laws and acts that could possibly erode away at our freedoms? Its a tough choice. But If we did repeal the patriot act and we had a suicide-bombing on American soil, I would gladly be on that bus or on that bus or on that plane if it meant our nation's freedoms would be preserved.

Stupid Bombkangaroo....It took you a post to say what I tried to say in 3 pages of argument, an argument that was in response to what was essentially a joke topic, bah humbug

I'm a bit confused as to whether this is going to be a government led program, or if the people will spontaneously rise up

Now, how will you get these guns?

I keep bringing up the Soviet Union, because it is a country that attempted to do the impossible, to set up a modernized Egalitarian society.

Did you ever see the movie "The Gods must be crazy?" It's a movie about a egalitarian tribe of bushmen who's society nearly collapses the moment the find a coke bottle, its fiction, but it beautifully illustrates that a simple coke bottle can make a greedless society a coniving, greedy, VIOLENT society. THe only reason the !kung are egalitarian is that they have nothing to be possessive of, they have almost nothing. I admit I was wrong about the NGOs purpose, now admit you are wrong in denying that !Kung are regularly kidnapped despite these "preserves" and still suffer greatly from droughts and food shortage, as nearly every article on the subject has detailed. You may be impressed with your B+ paper on the !Kung society, but I'm not. I trust what the experts have to say. And what the experts say is not good. Greed is a universal trait, deal with it. The only people that seem to deny this are Marxist or libertarian relics from a bygone era, and you of course. I was not attributing the AIDs epidemic to Egalitarian government, I was attributing the failure to treat the epidemic on Egalitarian government. You may say that it is bad everwhere in Africa, but you're wrong. Botswana and Namibia have a world-record of AIDs infections and deaths, and they are not the most populous or largest African nations by any measure. While Nigeria, the most populous, suffers from the record of most people "LIVING" with AIDs, it is able to keep these people alive and healthy as is possiblr on the African continent.

So convenient how you "blissfully ignored" the part where I pointed out how your revolution is impossible. just for kicks, tell me how you plan to carry this whole thing out...

You love calling me delusional don't you? Great part is I always make you look stupid the moment after you say that If you still want to argue, here's a recap of what you've conceded:

I stated that human greed and ambition was a universal trait, you attempted to refute this by snidely saying my opinion was disproved by history. I challenged you to find a modern Egalitarian society. You countered by citing the theory that our ancestors were egalitarian, while generally ridiculed, you saw fit to bring it up. I countered that a prehistoric society that we have no evidence supporting the existence of could not be considered a model, modern egalitarian society.
You then spoke of the !Kung people of southern Africa. I reminded you that they wouldn't even exist today if it weren't for the conservatories like Nyae Nyae(you admiited to that yourself) Which are set up by the respective Democratic, Capitalist nations that the !kung inhabit. You countered by telling me to stop using drugs, niiice. The nations that the !kung inhabit also have traces of egalitariansim in their constirutions, which explains the catastrophic unemployment, world-record levels of AIDs and the current Polia ecidemic.

Arming the homeless is a risky endeavor because 20-25 percent of the homeless in America suffer from sort of mental ilness. I particularly enjoy this part of the debate since I proved you wrong again and again. First you said that I was delusional, I gave you a source. Then you erroneously critiqued me on my word usage, I showed you a scenario where both phrases I used were Synonomous, then you accused me of making an over-statement by saying that a large number of the homeless had mental illnesses, then I generously provided you with another source clearly refuting your accusation. Then you suddenly declared that it didn't matter how many homeless had mental illness. Way to weasel out.

You also said that the amount of firearms you would provide was within reasonable limits. Not only would you need vast sums of money to get all of the firearms, I sensibly pointed out that you would have problems finding willing volunteers to commit murder for your society. In your ignorance, you believed that murder was not part of your plan, but I showed you the definition of murder, clearly describing it as malicious unlawful killing of a human. The only way your plan could work is if the government supported killing of the wealthy and was willing to fund this ludicrous crusade. The only way that could happen would be if there was some sort of revolution, and the only way their could be a revolution was if the government was willing to dund and legalize the killing of the wealthy, see where your logic ends? It would require a revolution to make your revolution possible. I dunno if you know this or not, but this defies the laws of time and space, but since I'm sure your mind is out far beyond what we primitive humans would call the universe, you didn't notice. I'm a democrat, and I'm offended when Republicans call us "bleeding hearts" and tell us to get our heads out of the clouds, But just knowing people like you exist, i really can relate to the GOP

You then called Democracy a failure, how has it failed? As has been said dozens of times before by wiser men than you or me, its the best we humans can do. America is by far the Strongest, richest, most technologically advanced, society on the planet. It is the First successful democratic government since Athens, and it has shown great restrain in foreign policy. It has a literate, educated population. and low unemployment and homelessness. the situation is even better in other democratic nations. Lets look at America's counterpart, the Soviet Union, oh well, I guess I'm too late. You think the government of a country that killed millions, invaded other nations, had a rigid brittle econmoy was somehow superior to Americas? it's my turn to tell you to stop smoking dope.

And it is still murder, no matter how you try to avoid it.

What do you mean, democracy being a solution to the problem? That's bullshit, and hopefully you realize that. America has had the popular vote in some shape or form since it's inception. And has that helped anything? Nope. And I have no idea what you're spouting off about 'half of society' being incapable of making decisions for themselves. My way gives everyone the ultimate decision, and the fairest playing grounds.

in a democratic society everybody IS on equal grounds, we all get one vote don't we? You must be pretty narrow-minded if you think that Democracy is a failure. Look at the Soviet Union. is that your model society? They did away with the nobility, those bolsheviks shot em' all! Did that help anything? Nope. Don't you see what a hypocrite you are? Let's say we had a vote on whether to arm the homeless, do you think it would pass? Nope. Yet you'd give it a try anyway, therefore, in your arrogance, you assume that the opinion of one person, you, outweighs that of the majority of the American people. Tell me, what makes you so great?

At 5/3/04 01:51 AM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 5/3/04 01:21 AM, The_General_Public wrote: Home-renters would MURDER for your Utopian, egalitarian society? Strange world you, and ONLY you live in Skvnk.

When did I say everyone would commit 'murder'?

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

What you are suggesting is murder. Unless you honestly think that President Bush will come on the news and declare that he is giving guns to the homeless and supporting them in their crusade to purge the world of the upper-class, its murder. Many people would say that the killing anyone in cold-blood is murder as well.

Hell, in your first post you said "arm the homeless."

It's a popular saying you nimrod.

To Radical leftt numbskulls like yourself maybe.

Armed conflict is the only way to disrupt the current system. Unless you have a better solution, you're not adding anything to the thread.

I do in fact have a solution: A little thing called "Democracy" If you believe that armed conflict is the only solution to the problem of poverty, that means you distrust the majority opinion of the American people. How can an egalitarian society function if more than half of them are incapable of making decisions for themselves?

At 5/3/04 12:50 AM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 5/3/04 12:41 AM, The_General_Public wrote: YOU don't even know what the hell you're talking about, you can't even remember what you said a couple of pages ago!

It was several days ago, and I didn't bother to look.

"Homeowners need not apply" really gives you the indication that you in fact ARE limiting this revolution to the homeless.

Ever heard of renters? No? Everyone ones a house or is homeless, huh? Strange world you live in.

Home-renters would MURDER for your Utopian, egalitarian society? Strange world you, and ONLY you live in Skvnk.
My family rents a home, and I wouldn't kill a human being for any reason, barring self-defense. Don't tell me that you thought of people that rented homes when you started this topic. Hell, in your first post you said "arm the homeless." You didn't say."Arm the homeless and arm to a lesser extent anyone that rents a house, apartment or the odd condo." You're saying that you had forgotten that you WERE limiting it to the homeless while simultaneously desperately trying to reword your statement.

Additionally, I'm not really talking about that many more guns. There are already more than 192 million privately-owned firearms in the US.

You could have all the guns in the world, but it wouldn't matter the least if you had nobody willing to fire those guns on innocent, (albeit arrogant, elitist, cowardly) HUMAN BEINGS. i'm not even going to ask HOW you'll even get all these guns anyway.

I can't believe it! I made fun of you by saying that you'd just ignore the facts by saying I had no math skills, yet you did it anyway! You insulted yourself in a way that no noe else could. Bravo

mmhmmmm

At a loss for words?

But regardless, if you read through the first page, you'll see that my plan is not limited to the homeless. It is based on yearly income.

Wow, I'm sure glad I read it over again...

If you are homeless with a yearly income of less than $10k a year, you will recieve an automatic rifle. People who make up to $20k a year will recieve a handgun. Homeowners need not apply.

YOU don't even know what the hell you're talking about, you can't even remember what you said a couple of pages ago! "Homeowners need not apply" really gives you the indication that you in fact ARE limiting this revolution to the homeless.

And the fact that some unstable people will recieve firearms is beside the point.

totally irrelevant that I dunno, 875,000 mentally unstable people are running around with assault rifles! or should I make that 875,001 people since clearly there must be something wrong with you if you can brush off a number like that as "a few"

I have no knowledge of simple arithmetic.

I can't believe it! I made fun of you by saying that you'd just ignore the facts by saying I had no math skills, yet you did it anyway! You insulted yourself in a way that no noe else could. Bravo

It's a great site though, some of those articles are hilarious, like: It's crazy to think that Rush Limbaugh dislikes those darkies! The ministry of faith column is always good.

I'm just dying to know, do you consider that a valid point? Do you? I don't know what I'd do if you responded with something like"you must do drugs, because you're weird"

http://www.unc.edu/courses/engl29/may1_00/mm/doc/home.html

In fact, approximately 20-25% of the single adult homeless population suffers from some form of severe and persistent mental illness (Koegel, 1996).

And you show absolutely no knowledge of the plight of homeless people. do you consider that a large number? Is that good enough for you? or is this just an overstatement?

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/numbers.html

3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in a given year (Urban Institute 2000).

Do the math, I would, but I'm afraid you'll just ignore the facts by saying that I have no knowledge of simple arithmetic.

At 5/2/04 10:54 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: Stop dropping acid.

your insults are just like your arguments, short, pointless, and always devoid of facts to back them up. This is a political discussion, I don't see why you have to take every valid point that whittles away at your radical beliefs like a little girl. People who have good ideas don't have to swear at their idealogical opponent like a a third grader.

At 5/2/04 10:43 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: "Much more likely" =/= "A large number of"

plzkthx

Jews in Nazi Germany were much more likely to be put in concentration camps=/=A large number of Jews were put in concentration camps in nazi germany?

Quit grasping at straws

What are you mouthing off about? The !Kung are doing better than the surrounding populations of people because of all of the NGO's, like the Nyae Nyae Conservancy. Get your head out of your ass.

Oh I get it, it all makes sense now, the !Kung are like pandas! like Siberian tigers! Right! What if we didn't put the !kung in preserves? what if we just let all the giant panda out of their preserves in China?

http://www.mungos.org/facts/health.shtml

I trust you can read the first few sentences

The most convincing argument I've heard for AA is this(It's kinda cliched, I didn't make it up ok?):

There a two guys, one is a suburban, middle-class white boy, he works pretty hard for his grades, he's part of a few activities, and he gets oh I dunno, a 1250

The other guy is a young black man on the East side of Cleveland, he's had to work for years just to feed his brood of a family, his father is dead, he's now the man of the house, he tries to make it to his run-down school every day, with no guarantee that even the teacher will be there. He puts his all into studying and gets a 1249. Who deserves to get into college more?

It's a good argument, but I'm sure most of you can see a problem with that, what if I switched the colors? what if it was a poor inner-city white boy, and a middle-class black boy? the black boy would get in while the white guy languished. I don't know if its possible, I'll admit right now I'm not an expert on the college admission process, but maybe they should judge not on skin color but on where they grew up, that way we'd probably develop a large Afro-American middle class, and we wouldn't be discriminating against white people(I guarantee that there aren't that many white guys on the East Side, but they're there) Maybe this has been said before, I dunno, I did say I wasn't an expert.

Now let's stray away from Africa just for a second, unless you would like to keep digging YOURSELF into a deeper hole. On the subject of arming the homeless, has it not occurred to you that a large number of the homeless suffer from a number of mental illnesses like Schizophrenia and Manic depression, among others? I'm not going toeven condone or condemn this revolution of yours. I'm just going to remind you of the obvious. These poor people would more likely harm themselves instead of rising up against Wal-mart or whatever it is that apparently runs the country. They need proper treatment and medication, not Liberation. You may be militant enough to believe that revolution is the only way to help these people. But I think that it is possible to change things without killing anyone in the process. Even if you were able to arm the homeless, in the end, you'd just be scouring the country of "psychos".

At 5/2/04 04:00 AM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 5/2/04 03:57 AM, The_General_Public wrote: Hey guess what, there's a word for that era, PREHISTORY.

Fine. The !Kung of south Africa. Up to fifty years ago, had no structural inequality system in place.

So they don't live in South Africa now, just southern Africa. Yeah I can tell you have been researching this for a semester.

Namibia has the highest rate of AIDs on the planet. Since the !Kung do not reflect this trend, the logical explanation is that they are not a significant or integral portion of the population. So, any massive economic gains or losses that you repeatedly trumpeted are in no way related to the !Kung's egalitarian society, and only represent the policies of the Namibian federal government, which has only slightly lower taxes than the neighboring nations. So You're vaunted !Kung egalitarian society is on the brink of extinction, due to slavery, drought and outside influence while the governments of Botswana and Namibia suffer catastrophic unemployment and an AIDs epidemic. I won't even go into South Africa, becuase you're apparently to lazy to add "ern" to the end of certain words. So either way, all of the societies that you've presented me with , egalitarian or not, have not even amounted to half the level of economic success and equality that of which is already found in the United States

Thanks a lot bombkangaroo. I hope you read that too RedSkvnk. The !Kung people are poor, kidnapped, always in danger of starvation, suffer the constant threat of AIDs. Their numbers are dwindling. There are more people in my hometown than there are !kung practicing their eglalitarian lifestyle. They have no voice in the politics of their respective countries, they are forced into slavery still in this day and age, and they can't even speak the languages of their brethren. And they are the closest thing to a model egalitarian society you can give me. Good worrk.

At 5/2/04 05:08 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 5/2/04 04:50 PM, The_General_Public wrote: They weren't conquered huh? So tell me all about how the Black
!Kung were ruled over by the white !Kung for decades.

There aren't any white !Kung. What in gods name are you talking about?

It's called sarcasm, you obviously don't know what you're talkimg about. you said that the !kung were never conquered, which leads me to ask how then, from 1806 to the late twentieth century, South Africa was totally controlled by White Settlers.

Okay, lets look at all your examples of Egalitarian societies. We have a record number of people dying of AIDS, sky-high unemployment rates, massive diamond-mining industries controlling the government(I thought you didn't like a wealthy ruling class?) One country where a small fraction of the people totally controlled the government and economy while the indigenous majority had harsh laws passed against them.

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
-Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

Funny how your model societies are perfect examples of what an egalitarian society is NOT

I like this one about Botswana even better.

Diamond mining has fueled much of the expansion and currently accounts for more than one-third of GDP and for nine-tenths of export earnings. Tourism, subsistence farming, and cattle raising are other key sectors. On the downside, the government must deal with high rates of unemployment and poverty. Unemployment officially is 21%, but unofficial estimates place it closer to 40%. HIV/AIDS infection rates are the highest in the world and threaten Botswana's impressive economic gains. Long-term prospects are overshadowed by the prospects of a leveling off in diamond mining production.

you call an unemployment rate of 40% a model society? An don't give me any BS about them just farming in tiny little Hobbiton-like communities. They're probably all dying in hospital beds. Botswana sounds like a Republican's wet dream.

I got this from the CIA world factbook:

...in drought years food shortages are a major problem in rural areas. A high per capita GDP, relative to the region, hides thegreat inequality of income distribution nearly one-third of Namibians had annual incomes of less than $1400 in constant 1994 dollars, according to a 1993 study...

Wow, Namibia sounds like a great country for the working class.