Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/9/08 09:57 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: So why is collectivist anarchism a bad thing? It's a community looking out for everyone.

This goes back to the whole thing about you having a better outlook on humanity I do.

Fair enough. Do you have any support?

Do I need to back up a claim that people and animals fight but anyway
1
2

If you haven't noticed by now, we're not evolving to survive. Rather than changing ourselves to adapt to the world, we're adapting the world to our own needs. So evolution is hardly a priority anymore. And if you're going to use the appeal to nature fallacy, we might as well be anarchist, since we evolved to our current gene pool under anarchy.

But its still hard wired in your brain to survive at all costs because we devoloped that way through evoloution. I do agree humans no longer evolve but we still have characteristics deigned to help us to.

Maybe those who were in control are better off.

Im pretty sure Im better off in my structured society then in your collective anarchy where we all live in communes and farm and we get raided for our food supplies all the time.

I have been supporting my assertions. You, however, keep asserting that humans only look after themselves, etc.

Because you have been providing links? No you are going off opinion and assumption just like me.

Then that's the problem; you really don't know what anarchy is. Anarchy is a complicated subject, and I'm not going to try and debate with someone who only understands the basic dictionary definition.

Because you have a college degree in this?

If you believe that we're an individualistic race, perhaps individualistic anarchism is for you.

No individualistic anarchism sounds like the world will turn into Mad Max and will be run by the guy with the most guns.

At 12/10/08 02:50 PM, Contipec wrote: blah blah blah

Have you ever considered go fucking yourself, stupid troll?

At 12/10/08 10:14 PM, Contipec wrote:

At 12/10/08 09:11 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 12/10/08 02:50 PM, Contipec wrote:

Why would I? I get plenty of sex so why go fuck myself? Sex is something of which everyday I get a handful.

by handful,do you mean this?

At 12/10/08 10:14 PM, Contipec wrote:

At 12/10/08 09:11 PM, Zeistro wrote:

At 12/10/08 02:50 PM, Contipec wrote: blah blah blah

Have you ever considered go fucking yourself, stupid troll?

Why would I? I get plenty of sex so why go fuck myself? Sex is something of which everyday I get a handful.

Okay, that's a downright lie. Your credibility has nosedived.

gb2/general/

At 12/9/08 07:29 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: He might not have tipped cars, but he didn't ride buses. And in a way, that had the same effect; the buses weren't getting used anymore and the system collapsed, therefore bringing attention to the civil rights movement.

I'm pretty sure his point was that it was a different means to the same effect.

Like... say for instance the effect you're looking for is... more money. Are employment and theft suddenly equivelant because they net you more money? Because your logic would have us saying yes.

Speaking of the civil rights movement, King wasn't the only fucking human being involved.

This is the better point to make.

Racism: exploiting other races (latinos, indians, chinese, as well as the slaves in the united states are notable examples) for less, so that you can make a bigger profit.

Actually... racism would be... exploiting others by race. By your criteria, if a black manager doesn't hire a white drug addict, but instead hires an indian who graduated valedictorian, it's racism.

Greed: do we need all of this shit? No, we don't. Are there people who could use our excesses to better their lives? Yes, there are.

The concept of ownership is an intrinsic part of object descrimination. Greed is the manifestation of seeking consistency in ownership, and consistency is the basis of a healthy reality.

Needs are ultimately arbitrary until you define what the needs are for - by which you would then be defining a life-style characteristic of those needs. Alot of people tend to think all we need is that which you'd find in a hunter-gatherer life style - but that assumes we need to live.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." - Helder Camara

You don't have to be communist to be a socialist-capitalist, and once you realize that... the issue rests on a spectrum.

At 12/10/08 10:14 PM, Contipec wrote: Why would I? I get plenty of sex so why go fuck myself? Sex is something of which everyday I get a handful.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, you probably get a lot of ghey secckz.

At 12/10/08 09:11 PM, Zeistro wrote:
Have you ever considered go fucking yourself, stupid troll?

hey hey, this is not the general forum..calm down..if you want to tell contipec to go fuck himself at least do it in a professional manner..

Well, bad news to all you communist/anarchist wackos out there:

Apperantly, the little commie was killed by a ricochet, and not by a direct shot.

According to the magazine "Focus", the bullet itself shows deformations only a ricochet could have.
But - whatever! The most important thing in your movement seems to smash other peoples property, right?

At 12/11/08 06:38 AM, Austrian-Mats wrote: Well, bad news to all you communist/anarchist wackos out there:

Apperantly, the little commie was killed by a ricochet, and not by a direct shot.

According to the magazine "Focus", the bullet itself shows deformations only a ricochet could have.
But - whatever! The most important thing in your movement seems to smash other peoples property, right?

Oh, so the ballistic experts have given their verdict..umph, l knew that that cop wasn't so retarded...but the eyewitnesses were sure about the fact that he got shot directly..so they lied..now THEY're in deep shit..

At 12/9/08 06:26 PM, aninjaman wrote: And how exactly are they connecting the riots to the death of the 15 year old boy?

They try to "punish" the police for killing this young boy (even if it was an "accident", shame on the police)...

But I think rioting is the wrong way...

At 12/11/08 12:11 AM, Zeistro wrote:

At 12/10/08 10:14 PM, Contipec wrote: Why would I? I get plenty of sex so why go fuck myself? Sex is something of which everyday I get a handful.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, you probably get a lot of ghey secckz.

Next time you may wish to follow this piece of advice

"It is better to be silent and let everyone assume you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain.

At 12/11/08 02:49 PM, sirbobsalot2 wrote:

At 12/11/08 12:11 AM, Zeistro wrote:

At 12/10/08 10:14 PM, Contipec wrote: Why would I? I get plenty of sex so why go fuck myself? Sex is something of which everyday I get a handful.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, you probably get a lot of ghey secckz.

Next time you may wish to follow this piece of advice

"It is better to be silent and let everyone assume you are a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" - Mark Twain.

Next time you might wish to follow this advice before typing cliches thinking it makes you clever.

"Suck my dick." - Ron Jeremy

At 12/11/08 05:00 PM, Zeistro wrote: Next time you might wish to follow this advice before typing cliches thinking it makes you clever.

"Suck my dick." - Ron Jeremy

WHAT THE FUCK?This is supposed to be a discussion thread, not an excuse to start a flame war!
If you want to insult each other, there is a thing called PM..

a cop being lite on fire, by our brothers and sisters fighting the revolution

one more

stand strong!
never give in!

At 12/12/08 10:39 AM, NhollowWearthO wrote: a cop being lite on fire, by our brothers and sisters fighting the revolution

ouuuch..that must hurt.
Oh, and l got some rather horrifying news for you people:
it seems that some policemen (read again:POLICEMEN) were amongst the "anarchists"..why did they do that?
To make the mess even worse to turn the public opinion against these people..
So actaully the policemen destroyed stores etc.
Yes sir.
This whole thing started out of anger.
This goddamn country is SO corrupted...example: when the whole country was on fire, back in 2005 or 6, can't remember right now (this time the fire affected mostly the woods and not the houses) Karamanlis (the president) was actually letting Regency Casino Mont Parnes build another casino on the burned area of the mountain instead of replanting all the trees...
But there are some worst examples...the general situation of this country is that the rich get richer and they don't give a shit about all the other people that will be thrown out of their homes because they have no money left just because mr.Politician or mr.CEO wants a new private island...
Anyway, this generation feels hopeless..and they aren't wrong: finding a job is very hard these days...so the "tolerance meter" hit the top and they just couldn't take it anymore.
So they started protesting.
But some thieves and even some pseudo-terrorists got into the crowd and here is the result..
You want an example: here it is.
A computer hardware and games shop, %u03A0%u03BB%u03B1%u03AF%u03C3%u03B9%u03 BF, was the angry mobs' target.
They were against rich people that can afford super PC's etc.
But they actually stole all the merchandise and THEN they burned the shop.
So it's not just idealism.
Who to blame?The police?The greedy politicians?The anarchists?The students?Who knows....

At 12/12/08 11:38 AM, HeavyTank wrote:

A computer hardware and games shop, %u03A0%u03BB%u03B1%u03AF%u03C3%u03B9%u03 BF, was the angry mobs' target.

lol, sorry about the shops' name, l used greek letters but apparently Newgrounds doesen't like it..
The name is Plaisio

Whilst I definitely dont agree with the violence and the destruction, maybe it will be for the better if Greece ends up escaping deregulation, and there are less people under the poverty line. I dont know, but maybe just maybe the ends will justify the means. I still dont hesitate to condemn the violence however.

At 12/12/08 11:38 AM, HeavyTank wrote: finding a job is very hard these days...so the "tolerance meter" hit the top and they just couldn't take it anymore.

And that's why burning down all potential workplaces and putting hundreds of other people out of a job is the way to go!

On another note: why is it acceptable to beat policemen to pulp, but is it unacceptable for a policeman to use any violence?
Riots are never fair, people flee into places where it's unacceptable for others to harm them and then strike when nobody's watching and then retreat back to their safe place. When a cop captures someone, they all scream how unfair it is that they took a youngster and how much they mistreat him. Meanwhile anyone who kills a cop is a hero of the masses.

At 12/12/08 02:26 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: And that's why burning down all potential workplaces and putting hundreds of other people out of a job is the way to go!

Hmm...the initial objective was to burn only banks and the parliament, but things got out of hand..

On another note: why is it acceptable to beat policemen to pulp, but is it unacceptable for a policeman to use any violence?

Because policemen can beat the fuck out of anybody without any consequences but when you beat a policeman you beat the law..understand?Me neither..

Riots are never fair, people flee into places where it's unacceptable for others to harm them and then strike when nobody's watching and then retreat back to their safe place. When a cop captures someone, they all scream how unfair it is that they took a youngster and how much they mistreat him. Meanwhile anyone who kills a cop is a hero of the masses.

Yeah l know sometimes the cops are just treted like bastards..for example (as you can see, l like examples) some students were throwing rocks at a police station...and that was ok..but when a policeman threw ONE single rock back, well, he is a heartless asshole and he is it even more when he refuses a rose that a girl offered to him..probably sarcastically...that's what you get if you listen to the medias...l am not saying that policemen are angels (not a little bit), but they have the public opinion against them, that's for sure!

At 12/10/08 01:27 AM, BetaOrionis wrote:

At 12/9/08 09:57 PM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 12/9/08 09:48 PM, aninjaman wrote: They work in groups because you survive better if you have people protect you.

So why is collectivist anarchism a bad thing? It's a community looking out for everyone.

While I won't pretend to know a lot about Collectivist Anarchism, from what you've said thusfar it sounds like it leaves the door wide open for tyranny of the majority. With no larger governmental body to protect citizens, smaller groups of people will gather and strip away the individual liberties of people with unpopular ideas/religions/habits/etc. Smaller groups of people are more easily corrupted than larger ones, and since all any of them would need is a majority of like-minded individuals to enact any form of justice, abuse would simply be unavoidable.

its a very complicated issue, and one of the strongest points against anarchy- how do you effectively maintain law and order? however, the general idea is that as long as coersion isnt involved then people will be left alone to their own devices. say, for example one of these minority religion/ideologies/habits started forcing their beliefs on others, the people would be entitled to put a stop to it. another more radical anarchist point is that without the corrupt influence of the state the world will be a more safer and saner place; we wont be (or at least wont be AS) motivated by greed and egotism, and we will be more encouraged towards natural morals rather than just acting and restricting our actions through fear of punishment.

The only way I see a Collectivist Anarchy working is if all individuals were highly intelligent, open-minded, and inherently good, which we all know is not the case.

theres no solid evidence for this. human behaviour is predominantly down to our environment and other outside stimulus. there is NO 'human nature', it doesnt exist, it is simply a fallacious ficticious fantasy created by the greedy and lazy to justify their actions. of course we still have animal instincts to eat, fuck, find warmth and sleep but it is very bad reasoning to say that the best way to satisfy these urges is through selfishness and blindly following the existing status quo.
im not particularly arguing for or against anarchism specifically here, simply saying that humans are moulded by experience and surroundings, and to be honest the ugly cultural void that corporate state sponsored capitalism seems to be sucking the masses into isnt the greatest influece for a more compassionate, intelligent and altruistic society.

At 12/10/08 02:50 PM, Contipec wrote:

Capitalists are the cockroaches. I hope they destroy as much as they can, and destroy a couple of banks while they are at it.

*knocks Contipec's head* It's hollow

At 12/12/08 03:22 AM, HeavyTank wrote:

At 12/11/08 05:00 PM, Zeistro wrote: Next time you might wish to follow this advice before typing cliches thinking it makes you clever.

"Suck my dick." - Ron Jeremy

WHAT THE FUCK?This is supposed to be a discussion thread, not an excuse to start a flame war!
If you want to insult each other, there is a thing called PM..

When you have crazy extremists from both sides come in face to face, things gets messy and you know what happens.

At 12/12/08 03:43 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:
When you have crazy extremists from both sides come in face to face, things gets messy and you know what happens.

When you have to crazy extremists come face to face ten seconds after that you have one live extremist feasting over the dead extremists' corpse..

At 12/12/08 04:03 PM, HeavyTank wrote:

At 12/12/08 03:43 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:
When you have crazy extremists from both sides come in face to face, things gets messy and you know what happens.

When you have to crazy extremists come face to face ten seconds after that you have one live extremist feasting over the dead extremists' corpse..

That would be a sight to see, imagine Andrew Zimmerman joining the festivities as well.

At 12/10/08 10:57 AM, HeavyTank wrote:
Yes..and this means that the rioting would happen in any case, and that the death of the boy had nothing to do with it..

Only it did - they didn't have five-day riots planned months in advance, you know.

You need a spark to start a riot, and the killing was a perfect catalyst for it because it's an example of why Greeks have a lot of ill-feeling toward the police (see also: the riots in Italy just over a year ago, in a remarkably similar case).

Widespread ill-feeling of the police + an act to magnify this feeling = riots

Would the LA Riots have happened if Rodney King didn't get his head kicked in? Highly doubtful.

The same goes with strikes: In the UK we're piss poor at it, but in France the whole country is orginised and that gets attention, as you can't miss it, and that can force the hand that signs.

At 12/12/08 02:37 PM, HeavyTank wrote:
Because policemen can beat the fuck out of anybody without any consequences but when you beat a policeman you beat the law..understand?Me neither..

Hmm, at least where I live, policemen get thrown in jail for using their clubs unnecessary (read, before the opponent actually kills them)
I think people like to blame their government for corruption and all cause they need someone to accuse for all their misery. And it is very unlikely that police officers can randomly shoot people without getting sacked. But that's not what the general population want to hear. The government is evil and the police are just their minions who love to kill and maim cause they fucking can!

I'm worried about some friends of mine who are residents in the areas where the worst clashes are happening. These mobs would probably lynch the policemen if they got into the police station where the two men are being held. But the risk is that the army could be called in and take over if they get the chance and repeat the junta of the 1970s.

I hope that this will end soon, for every Greek's sake.

At 12/13/08 06:18 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:
I think people like to blame their government for corruption and all cause they need someone to accuse for all their misery. And it is very unlikely that police officers can randomly shoot people without getting sacked.

Not one officer involved in the De Menezes shooting was disciplined in any way, let alone sacked. Indeed, several involved in the operation have since been promoted.

At 12/13/08 02:19 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:
Only it did - they didn't have five-day riots planned months in advance, you know.

They did..believe me, they did...