Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/18/04 10:35 PM, punk_hippy wrote: Working Class: Minimum Wage

Not even the people at Mcdonalds work for minimum wage. If you are going to give a definition, give some backing for it, reasoning or dictionary or something, don't just say it and expect us to take your opinion as fact.

At 2/18/04 10:35 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: You do realize that the year is not 1900, right? The rise of the middle class and general economic advancement made the concept of 'class struggle' obsolete long ago.

That's not what I heard.

At 2/18/04 10:40 PM, punk_hippy wrote:
That's not what I heard.

You miss my point. What I'm saying is that the world is no longer polarized between absolutely rich and miserably poor. The stark contrasts between rich and poor as in the Industrial Revolution era have disappeared; There is much more gray area now and thus few solidly defined 'classes' as such. To support socialism and/or communism requires one to see the world in almost black and white extremes, ruch vs. poor, but real life is rarely that simple.

At 2/18/04 10:35 PM, Jimsween wrote: No, that is simply not true. You are claiming that middle class has anything to do with type of profession, it simply doesn't, it is the standard of living. The working class can be, and often are the middle class.

Ok, wait wait wait. I don't want to get involved in this. In truth, I believe that they are one and the same, working class and middle class. It depends on your ideological position. You nearly never hear about the 'working class' in America. We are a 'middle class' society. The actual, median income is between 30-40 something thousand a year (rough estimate, I forget the exact). Leaving very little room for a working class, if you choose to believe they both coexist. But naturally it's not dependent on your wage, rather your standard of living. Such as material goods, and the amount of control you have over your job.

Main Entry: mid·dle-class
Pronunciation: "mi-d&l-'klas
Function: adjective

of or relating to the middle class; especially : characterized by a high material standard of living, sexual morality, and respect for property

No, stop going to a dictionary for these types of definitions. That's what started this in the first place.

At 2/18/04 10:52 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: You miss my point. What I'm saying is that the world is no longer polarized between absolutely rich and miserably poor.

Just a few examples...
Three billion of the six billion people on earth lived on less than US$2 per day and 1,2 billion of them lived on under US$1 a day
(In South America) Income inequality in the region had worsened with the richest one tenth of the population earning 48% of its total income, while the poorest tenth earns only 1.6%...the report found men and women of African descent earn about 45% of their white counterparts.

Are we living in the same world?

At 2/18/04 10:52 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: What I'm saying is that the world is no longer polarized between absolutely rich and miserably poor. ...There is much more gray area now and thus few solidly defined 'classes' as such. To support socialism and/or communism requires one to see the world in almost black and white extremes, ruch vs. poor, but real life is rarely that simple.

I agree to a certain extent. That is why communist theory is hard to swallow nowadays. I need to find contemporary communist / socialist theories. They probably all hing on class structure though, huh?

But simply because we do not hear about class structure today, that there is not real, open class conflict, doesn't mean that western society is classless...

At 2/18/04 10:59 PM, -redskunk- wrote: Ok, wait wait wait. I don't want to get involved in this. In truth, I believe that they are one and the same, working class and middle class. It depends on your ideological position. You nearly never hear about the 'working class' in America. We are a 'middle class' society. The actual, median income is between 30-40 something thousand a year (rough estimate, I forget the exact). Leaving very little room for a working class, if you choose to believe they both coexist. But naturally it's not dependent on your wage, rather your standard of living. Such as material goods, and the amount of control you have over your job.

First of all, median means little to nothing. Second, I don't have any idea what you are talking about, so you must be smarter than me.

No, stop going to a dictionary for these types of definitions. That's what started this in the first place.

I'm sorry, I'll think twice before using facts....

At 2/18/04 11:04 PM, punk_hippy wrote: Are we living in the same world?

Never before has there been such a highly polarized world. You'll nearly always have people with nothing. In this case, 3 billion of them. Then you have Bill Gates, and the Fortune 500.

At 2/18/04 11:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, median means little to nothing.

ok

Second, I don't have any idea what you are talking about, so you must be smarter than me.

Cool, daddy-o.

I'm sorry, I'll think twice before using facts....

Oh please; you can't explain complex, changing theories, ideologies, etc., with a dictionary.

can this all be avioded by saying nationalism is petty in its very concept. By its very nature it is petty.

As an aggregate all men are created equal
Countries are created of an aggregate of men

Thus all men of all countries are on average equal

nationalism entails believeing one nation is superior to another
A nation is a large group of men under a government

Thus Countries are then equal insofar that their governments are equal

Nationalism is pride in ones government

Governments are established in an attempt to determine the best type of government (e.g. america was the west's resurgence of testing the idea of a republic)
There is no perfect government that has been created
So all that can be concluded about a government is it works more effectively for peoples freedom with safety than another but does not do so in the best manner it could
So it can be concluded that all governments are a failure and should be altered
This means non are a success
Thus Governments are petty (well i lost my train of thought but its rather valid)

Thus nationalism is petty

War between governments equate to fighting over sportsteams
Wars of religions equate to fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.

At 2/18/04 11:11 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/18/04 11:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: I'm sorry, I'll think twice before using facts....

Oh please; you can't explain complex, changing theories, ideologies, etc., with a dictionary.

Funny, the phrase middle-class fits into none of those categories, maybe thats because it's a phrase, which IS something that can be defined with a dictionary.

At 2/18/04 11:38 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 2/18/04 11:11 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/18/04 11:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: I'm sorry, I'll think twice before using facts....

Oh please; you can't explain complex, changing theories, ideologies, etc., with a dictionary.

Funny, the phrase middle-class fits into none of those categories, maybe thats because it's a phrase, which IS something that can be defined with a dictionary.

Thus my use of the phrase etcetera, which is rather all-encompassing. I like to cover my ass like that sometimes. But, hey, if we're on the subject of it, I would argue that 'middle class' is a concept, not simply a phrase. And concepts, in my mind, tie in nicely with theories and ideologies...

At 2/18/04 11:59 PM, -redskunk- wrote: But, hey, if we're on the subject of it, I would argue that 'middle class' is a concept, not simply a phrase. And concepts, in my mind, tie in nicely with theories and ideologies...

You do realize that nearly anything can be a concept, don't you?

At 2/19/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote:

You do realize that nearly anything can be a concept, don't you?

Not to be biased towards on person or another but whats not a concept i mean i have a concept of what a tree is and stuff like that. Is anything not actually a concept?

At 2/18/04 10:40 PM, punk_hippy wrote:

At 2/18/04 10:35 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: You do realize that the year is not 1900, right? The rise of the middle class and general economic advancement made the concept of 'class struggle' obsolete long ago.

That's not what I heard.

Punk hippy is right, commandet k25 is wrong.......horribly wrong. Just stating the obvious.

At 2/19/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote: You do realize that nearly anything can be a concept, don't you?

Holy crap, most asinine argument ever. Yet no one lets up. Let's go to a dictionary for 'concept,' shall we?

con·cept
n.
A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion.
A scheme; a plan.

Thus, nearly everything can not be a concept. It is an idea, a thought, or a plan.

At 2/19/04 12:51 AM, -redskunk- wrote:

con·cept
n.
A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.

you can have a concept of what a thing is. so i think you can have a concept of anything, based on that part. But really i didnt read the other part of your arguments but i imagine this is pointless.

The world may not be polarized like it once was, but we're becoming the past with every money-laundering cash-hungry ceo we produce.

At 2/19/04 12:51 AM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/19/04 12:23 AM, Jimsween wrote: You do realize that nearly anything can be a concept, don't you?

Holy crap, most asinine argument ever. Yet no one lets up. Let's go to a dictionary for 'concept,' shall we?

Thus, nearly everything can not be a concept. It is an idea, a thought, or a plan.

And Middle Class is none of those. You see, you are claiming that the term Middle Class is an idea, and if that is an idea, than as I stated before, nearly anything can be one. Is it really that hard to think about what you are saying before you post, or are you so eager to prove me wrong that you would miss the fact that you just proved yourself wrong in the process.

At 2/19/04 12:54 AM, miket311 wrote: you can have a concept of what a thing is.

fine. I'm giving up before Jimsween replies again. He beat my spirit into a lifeless pulp.

Too Late.

At 2/19/04 01:00 AM, Jimsween wrote: And Middle Class is none of those. You see, you are claiming that the term Middle Class is an idea, and if that is an idea, than as I stated before, nearly anything can be one. Is it really that hard to think about what you are saying before you post, or are you so eager to prove me wrong that you would miss the fact that you just proved yourself wrong in the process.

Why do you insist on arguing over the pettiest things?

If you want to get political theories and constructions from a dictionary, go right ahead. But don't expect to realistically understand anything. This argument is pointless.

At 2/19/04 01:08 AM, -redskunk- wrote: Too Late.

At 2/19/04 01:00 AM, Jimsween wrote: And Middle Class is none of those. You see, you are claiming that the term Middle Class is an idea, and if that is an idea, than as I stated before, nearly anything can be one. Is it really that hard to think about what you are saying before you post, or are you so eager to prove me wrong that you would miss the fact that you just proved yourself wrong in the process.

Why do you insist on arguing over the pettiest things?

Because the pettiest things often times determine ones stance of the most important things. Ever wonder why when people get into long debates what theya re talking about has little or nothing to do with what they were talking about originally?

If you want to get political theories and constructions from a dictionary, go right ahead. But don't expect to realistically understand anything. This argument is pointless.

Since when was the phrase Middle-Class a political theory, hoenstly stop referring to it as if it were. It's a phrase, much like the phrase Human Race or Labor Union, all of these things can be defined.

At 2/19/04 01:13 AM, Jimsween wrote: Because the pettiest things often times determine ones stance of the most important things. Ever wonder why when people get into long debates what theya re talking about has little or nothing to do with what they were talking about originally?

Yes, I do wonder. That's why I asked. And actually, believe it or not, some debates do stay on topic. I don't see how this argument is illuminating anyones stance on anything, particularly nationalism.

Since when was the phrase Middle-Class a political theory, hoenstly stop referring to it as if it were. It's a phrase, much like the phrase Human Race or Labor Union, all of these things can be defined.

"Midde Class" is an intangible, ever-changing, political category. If you want to simply look at a dictionary's definition of it, go right ahead.

At 2/19/04 12:57 AM, TheShrike wrote: The world may not be polarized like it once was, but we're becoming the past with every money-laundering cash-hungry ceo we produce.

What do you mean, it's not polarised? Didn't you see punks post about the fact that billions are starving, whilst CEO's rake in $loads per year?

At 2/18/04 11:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, median means little to nothing. Second, I don't have any idea what you are talking about, so you must be smarter than me.

'Median' is the middle of a group of numbers. The median of this group:

1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 100, 9574846

Is 7.

The working class is often the middle class. Middle class is simply those who have a decent standard of living.

Middle Class is those that work in white-collar jobs. Now obviously the definition is changing to those that work in crap jobs but I don't see how you can argue that the relatively worst off in society are not the relatively worst off. And still this is a side point.

Secondly Marx used bourgeoisie differently then the traditional french meaning. He reserved bourgeoisie for the upper class, the Capitalists and classed the Middle Class as part of the Proletariat ("noble professions reduced to mere wage slaves".)

Which means what? That he is indeed a whore who gets all his arguments from marx.

That who is a whore? Sorry your sentence lacks context. Anyhow, the fact of the matter is that "bourgeoisie" has two meanings. You were using the incorrect one.

So you are wrong on only two counts....a new record low for you.

I've noticed that the people tend to jump to claiming the other is wrong when they know that they have a weak argument, as to draw attention away from that.

It is apparent to me that people tend to direct the attention away from the fact they have a weak argument by "noticing" things instead of actually responding.

Anyhow, enough of this. I will not continue to respond to the brickwall that is Jimsween.

You miss my point. What I'm saying is that the world is no longer polarized between absolutely rich and miserably poor. The stark contrasts between rich and poor as in the Industrial Revolution era have disappeared; There is much more gray area now and thus few solidly defined 'classes' as such.

There still is a large underclass in society, even more so in the US then over here. The problem is that they have dropped off the radar, people don't see them.

To support socialism and/or communism requires one to see the world in almost black and white extremes, ruch vs. poor, but real life is rarely that simple.

Not so, it's exploiter vs exploitee. While in rich western countries the exploitation has become more and more veiled it still exists.

At 2/19/04 09:28 AM, Slizor wrote: Now obviously the definition is changing to those that work in crap jobs but I don't see how you can argue that the relatively worst off in society are not the relatively worst off.

But, but.. The dictionary said!

Slizor, when you quote, please leave the line that says who you're quoting. It makes life easier.

At 2/19/04 12:44 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Slizor, when you quote, please leave the line that says who you're quoting. It makes life easier.

I think he's trying to pretend he came up with it