Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/19/04 05:15 PM, miket311 wrote:

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

What? Quoting himself?

At 2/19/04 06:02 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/19/04 05:15 PM, miket311 wrote:

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

What? Quoting himself?

Or just not citing so you infer he quoted himself?

At 2/19/04 01:42 AM, -redskunk- wrote:

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.

I'd like to see some of these debates your talking about, I've been on the forum much longer than you and haven't seen one. And how many debates on here actually change anyone's stance on anything, better yet, how many debates at all change people's stances?

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.

Your opinion isn't fact. There are aspects of the middle class that are intangible, but there are also many apsects that MUST be defined, in order to give the word any meaning at all, that is what the dictionary does. If a word has no clear meaning of any sort, how can it be a word?

At 2/19/04 09:28 AM, Slizor wrote:

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.

So now your definition is more valid than the dictionarie's? The middle class is simply the group of people in the middle of the wealth spectrum. What it is constantly changes, but not where it falls.

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.

Marijuana clock. Both the meanings are the same, yes bourgeoisie is a social order dominated by the bourgeois, but the bourgeois are still those in the middle class, so it doesn't make a difference. Seems to me like your just grasping for an argument that doesn't exist.

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.

Something you yourself would be guilty of in this very post.

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

Ah, the grand finale, the "you are and I know that so I will not post anymore".

At 2/20/04 04:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: So now your definition is more valid than the dictionarie's? The middle class is simply the group of people in the middle of the wealth spectrum. What it is constantly changes, but not where it falls.

No, the middle class is regardless of income, they are the White-Collar Jobs. Businessmen, Doctors, Solicitors, etc.

At 2/20/04 04:30 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/20/04 04:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: So now your definition is more valid than the dictionarie's? The middle class is simply the group of people in the middle of the wealth spectrum. What it is constantly changes, but not where it falls.

No, the middle class is regardless of income, they are the White-Collar Jobs. Businessmen, Doctors, Solicitors, etc.

No, the middle class depends specifically on income. Well, to be more specific, thier standard of living, which itself depends on income.

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

It's fluid, just because white collar jobs fit into it today, does not mean that they will forever.

Must be a different definition, because here, middle/working class means anyone who doesn't work in a factory, or with your hands. Upper Class is reserved for the aristocracy.

At 2/20/04 05:16 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Must be a different definition, because here, middle/working class means anyone who doesn't work in a factory, or with your hands. Upper Class is reserved for the aristocracy.

Same here in Canada, income doesn't really matter, it's more of the prestige associated towards your job.

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

I'm not about making life easier, I'm about making it look nice.

Not that this is actually a response to Jimsween or anything, but has anyone noticed that his original argument "workers are part of the bourgeoisie, therefore Marx is stupid" (paraphrasing) woud require the Marxist definition of bourgeoisie and not the original French definition which he is so insistantly using?

"Dictionary flame: An attempt to sidetrack a debate by insisting on meanings for key terms that presuppose a desired conclusion or smuggle in an implicit premise. A common tactic of people who prefer semantic argument to reality. "

http://www.advicemeant.com/flame/10define.shtml

At 2/20/04 10:58 PM, punk_hippy wrote:

At 2/20/04 05:16 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Must be a different definition, because here, middle/working class means anyone who doesn't work in a factory, or with your hands. Upper Class is reserved for the aristocracy.

Same here in Canada, income doesn't really matter, it's more of the prestige associated towards your job.

Uh, yeah, income really doesn't matter in the US either. Contrary to what some would have you believe. It's a lot more about standard of living and how much control you have over your job.

At 2/22/04 09:46 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

Uh, yeah, income really doesn't matter in the US either. Contrary to what some would have you believe. It's a lot more about standard of living and how much control you have over your job.

you will have a low standard of living if you dont have a good proportion of income compared to the cost of living, control over your job? what do you mean by this?

At 2/22/04 09:50 PM, miket311 wrote: you will have a low standard of living if you dont have a good proportion of income compared to the cost of living

Yes, but look at the amount of people, with six digit incomes, who have massive amounts of debt. It's not entirely dependent on wage compared to cost of living.

control over your job? what do you mean by this?

There's acouple of sides to this. I was a bit too specific perhaps.
• One: You have a job which allows for stimulation, thought, etc. Not mind-numbingly routine. Ever notice how people who don't have very strenous jobs still complain about being exhausted at work. An un-stimulating job can be just as exhausting,
• Also, I meant.. how much control over your job do you have. If your stuck with the same job, then it's not a great situation. Regardless of whether it pays well, if it's something that you hate, your standard of living won't be up there. And if you don't have any other alternatives, then your pretty much stuck at your job.

If your living check-to-check, would you still consider that 'middle-class'?

At 2/22/04 11:16 PM, -redskunk- wrote:

• One: You have a job which allows for stimulation, thought, etc. Not mind-numbingly routine. Ever notice how people who don't have very strenous jobs still complain about being exhausted at work. An un-stimulating job can be just as exhausting,
• Also, I meant.. how much control over your job do you have. If your stuck with the same job, then it's not a great situation. Regardless of whether it pays well, if it's something that you hate, your standard of living won't be up there. And if you don't have any other alternatives, then your pretty much stuck at your job.

ah so to put condense that a job that you enjoy and makes use of your talents but doesnt overwork you. and a job market where it is easy to find jobs or switch jobs, and many are desireable for reasons other then the paycheck

If your living check-to-check, would you still consider that 'middle-class'?

is this assuming you have no money saved well then i would say no and high income people in debt arent well off either. I guess you have to look at thier income minus debt. When i think about middle class i do assume some financial breathing room

At 2/22/04 05:48 PM, Slizor wrote:

Not that this is actually a response to Jimsween or anything, but has anyone noticed that his original argument "workers are part of the bourgeoisie, therefore Marx is stupid" (paraphrasing) woud require the Marxist definition of bourgeoisie and not the original French definition which he is so insistantly using?

I'd sure like to see this "original argument", is that the one you made up I was using hoping that I wouldn't bother calling you on that? I'm not saying Marx is stupid, I'm saying Marijuana Clock is stupid because he uses words just because Marx said them.

"Dictionary flame: An attempt to sidetrack a debate by insisting on meanings for key terms that presuppose a desired conclusion or smuggle in an implicit premise. A common tactic of people who prefer semantic argument to reality. "

http://www.advicemeant.com/flame/10define.shtml

OMG! It's on the internet? Well then it must be true.

At least I use a universally accepted dictionary for my definitions, instead of a website made by frustrated computer nerds.

At 2/18/04 11:29 PM, miket311 wrote: Nationalism is pride in ones government

WRONG! Nationalsim is not pride in ones government. Nationalism is pride in ones nation, which are not formed around governments but instead around different "ethnic/racial" groups which share similar qualities.

Sure, nationalism may be petty, but then so is being proud of your own ethnicity. And even though a lack of pride in ur own heritage may stop discrimination, it would only create the most boring world u could ever imagine.

its all stupid ur right. but, my country IS better then yours. Lol jk

At 2/27/04 12:12 AM, PretzelLogic88 wrote:

WRONG! Nationalsim is not pride in ones government. Nationalism is pride in ones nation, which are not formed around governments but instead around different "ethnic/racial" groups which share similar qualities.

to bad you decided to look up the definition and didnt bother to exercise your apparently amazing reading comprehension.
NATIONALISM IS ALWAYS DEGRADED FROM PRIDE IN CULTURE TO PRIDE IN GOVERNMENT because the government in power acts as a leech on the peoples customs to consitute their continued presence in times when they dont work well.

But even so in its sense for a definition it is still petty as you said