OT: Cartoon

[Tom MacIntyre]

Not entirely accurate. In the not-so-distant past,
there was a concept called "noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)
where the richest guy in town was also the most generous,
using his money and influence to promote the general welfare.
The sharpest guys realized that if it wasn't for the serfs, little would get done.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=noblis-oblige

This social pressure (along with social graces??) has fallen by the wayside,
it appears.

Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy
projects, etc. I know...it does promote his business.

Tom

 

[Terry Given]

Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?

Tom

Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well
as non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming
it on socialism is ingenuous to say the least. The list of non-socialist
countries that have cmt might surprise you.

To paraphrase you:
banning homosexuality is a common thing in Islamic countries so it is no
surprise the Republicans are pushing it.

now do you see how silly your socialism comment is? there is no
cause-and-effect, its just pointless verbal posturing.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?

Tom

reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced servitude.

To paraphrase you:
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.

there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.

Cheers
Terry

 

[[email protected]]

Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy
projects, etc. I know...it does promote his business.

By percentages, he doesn't donate much of anything. To the poor, what he does
give seems like a lot, but he charitable donations amount to the equivilant of
a few hundred bucks at the most, to many of us. When a man with billions
donates a million, its laughable that anyone thinks that is a generous
donation.

Besides, he created massive computer illiteracy with his terrible products in
the first place, using illegal methods. Since his business is making horrific
software, the very least he can do is cough up a few bucks to help pay for
people to figure out how to use it.

John

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

Since [Bill's] business is making horrific
software, the very least he can do is cough
up a few bucks to help pay for
people to figure out how to use it.

Bonfire building 101?

 

[Dennis M. O'Connor]

Of course not. But if something happens in socialist countries, as well as
non-socialist countries in not-too-dis-similar amounts, then blaming it on
socialism is ingenuous to say the least.

I didn't blame socialism. See how the paragraph starts
"And show me someone from either side ..." ?

So your response, above, is complete nonsense.
Learn to fucking read, please.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:04:53 -0500, Charles Schuler wrote: []
Gee, we sure see this differently and, of course, point of view is
everything. To me, liberals seem to be the ones who know how everyone else
should live.

That's really weird, because I see it almost exactly the opposite. My
impression was that the liberals don't care what you do with your own
body, but if you get any money, the liberals want you to redistribute
it. The conservatives, however, don't care how much money you get -
the more the merrier, AIUI - but they don't want you to experience
any pleasure, because that's a sin. And, of course, they're God's
morality police on Earth.

Ah, hell, they're ALL god's morality police. And all the rule-based
systems anybody's come up with yet rely on coercion.

And I don't think it's any secret that I espouse enlightened self-
interest, which some call anarchy because they're horrified that
if people aren't ruled with an iron fist, they'll all go on a
fucking spree or something.

Thanks,
Rich

No, no. I said that I "advocate" "enlightened self-interest." As to
whether I'm "enlightened" or not, I think, would depend on one's
definition of "enlightened."

TRUE enlightened self-interest is embodied best in People's Democratic
Communism, which:

1) Equalizes everyone's inheritance at birth of their fair share of
the world built up by all our common ancestors,

2) Which protects the weak from being underpaid and under-advantaged
by the strong,

3) And which grants everyone who works at something we all decide
we want together an equal wage per hour that anyone can achieve and
which anyone can be as well-off as they want,

As long as they don't **** with anyone else's equal opportunity or
cheat anyone unfairly.

Well, you seem to still be stuck on that "it's their responsibility
to feed me" mindset. Get over that, and it's a nice fantasy.

-------------------
Why would you out-and-out LIE about what I have said!!

I have said that anyone who isn't working at a job that all of us
want done SHOULD BE STARVED TILL THEY DO! I have even said that
it should be ILLEGAL for ANYONE TO FEED THEM TILL THEY SIGN UP FOR
WORK!

It is true, that it is the responsibility of whichever spirit I'm
the denial of, to undeny me, but that's about seven orders of
dimensionality divorced from the consensus reality.

------------------------
Nobody understands what you just said there.

I learn daily, in spades, that ranting at the oppressor just gives
them excuses for more oppression.

--------------------------------
So then speaking against an oppressor is useless? You're ridiculous.

Your error, as I see it, is assuming that the oppressors are rational.

----------------------
No, I have no such erroneous belief. I'm speaking to those who are
oppressed.

How do you stop an express train? Stand on the tracks and try to face
it down by sheer force of will? Of course not! You get squashed. You
stand alongside, and throw little rocks with intent to annoy the
wheels, and with any luck, derail it.

This is a metaphor, by the way.

Thanks,
Rich

------------------------
If I were to stand in its way as you say I would start killing
Republicans without anyone helping me. I'd rather wait till one
half the country is ready to kill the other half. It won't be
long now.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Nah. That's the nazis. Ordinary conservatives just want to make
sure that nobody's having any fun, since fun is a sin.

----------------------------
Lots of what fools call fun is not, it's merely their own brainwashed
self-destructiveness from their abuse as a child. But the religiously
superstitious are against ACTUAL fun, like sexuality, but they seem
to support "sins" that are self-destructive, as being somehow better
than those that are NOT!

Well, yeah, this is a very noble ideal, but exhorting the monied
to do the right thing has been shown, repeatedly, for thousands of
years, to be futile. Sigh.

----------------------------
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!

Well, Yeah! Of course! So, are you, like I have been, still stuck on
the idea that exhortations could convince them to change their rapacious,
albeit profitable, ways?

-----------------------------------------
I'm not working to convince the rich of anything, They KNOW why they
lie to the resst of us, they PAY for the best liars and own the media!
Why would they even BOTHER to own and control the media if they did
NOT need to LIE to the rest of us to keep us down!!!

I don't understand this bit. The liberals want to see the tables
turned, not realizing that there is a very serious risk of turning
oneself into that thing that one hates. Is that it?

----------------------------------------
Liberals don't ALL believe in Socialism, but MOST of them do.
Rightist Reactionaries want crypto-Feudalism, where the strong
own and run everything for their advantage, and the rest of us
arethe equivalent of serfs. That *IS* what "Market" econimics
is, essentially, is, the assertion that whoever can cheat others
the best should be the richest/most powerful.

Pretty much, yeah. ----------------------
Yup.



Well, the rich find themselves in the enviable position of controlling
all the resources. (BTW, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from
capitalizing "The rich". My name is Rich, and I'm not one of them.)

----------------------------
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!

 

[R. Steve Walz]

So, the former want to feed us sugar water and the latter
bullshit? Sounds about right.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[R. Steve Walz]

You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf



Three "personal" slams

---------------------
Only if you TAKE it "personally", WHINER!

and you are out, my friend!

--------------------
Nobody cares.

No Whining!

-Steve

 

[JeffM]

"noblis oblige" (nobility obligates)...

Doesn't Bill Gates donate a lot of money to computer literacy projects, etc.
Tom MacIntyre

What's a lot to a guy wih $50B?
When I hear him say "Ouch" I'll be impressed.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

 

[R. Steve Walz]

reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.

-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!

To paraphrase you:
banning gay marriage is a common thing in islamic countries,
so it is no surprise that the Republicans are pushing it.

there is no causal relationship, its just pointless rhetoric.

Cheers
Terry

------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.

-Steve

 

[Terry Given]

This is true. I alas have never suffered from Faith (or that annoying
habit of Capitalising words to prevent rational discourse

As a Fur'ner, I know little about Republocrats and Demicans, so can
neither confirm nor deny - although of course the Abrahamic link is
undeniable (but rarely mentioned). They are however clearly not islamic,
which I think most people know, thereby illustrating my creative use of
the principle of Reductio Ad Absurdum to demolish the pathetic straw man
put up by DMO'C.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!

again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries. Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.

Ergo my somewhat terse "reverse your argument..." statement. Hell, he
doesnt even need to reverse the argument to see it can refute his first
statement.

------------------
Nonsense, Islam has anti-sexuality and anti-homosexuality as its
models for sin precisely because it descends from the same insane
Abrahamic nutcake branch of mideast religion that Fundy Xtianity
comes from.

-Steve

too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above

Your comments about islam are however correct. It was perhaps not the
best example I could have chosen.


Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

What's a lot to a guy wih $50B?
When I hear him say "Ouch" I'll be impressed.

Reminds me of a comment about wealth from one of the smartest engineers
I know, who pointed out that the optimum amount of money is 5.0 times
what you currently have.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Terry Given]

----------------------------
Lots of what fools call fun is not, it's merely their own brainwashed
self-destructiveness from their abuse as a child. But the religiously
superstitious are against ACTUAL fun, like sexuality, but they seem
to support "sins" that are self-destructive, as being somehow better
than those that are NOT!




----------------------------
The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!

dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?

Mind you 80% of the worlds food comes from 4 crops - potatoes, corn,
rice, wheat.

-----------------------------------------
I'm not working to convince the rich of anything, They KNOW why they
lie to the resst of us, they PAY for the best liars and own the media!
Why would they even BOTHER to own and control the media if they did
NOT need to LIE to the rest of us to keep us down!!!




----------------------------------------
Liberals don't ALL believe in Socialism, but MOST of them do.
Rightist Reactionaries want crypto-Feudalism, where the strong
own and run everything for their advantage, and the rest of us
arethe equivalent of serfs. That *IS* what "Market" econimics
is, essentially, is, the assertion that whoever can cheat others
the best should be the richest/most powerful.

The intersting thing about darwinism is that he based a lot of his ideas
on economic theories of the time, which basically were the strong eat
the weak.

----------------------------
Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!

Alas, the majority are sheep. Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs. But the likelihood is by the time you wipe out 1/2 the
serfs the rest will pretty much fall in line.

If and only if it decides to switch its brain on. Luckily watching TV
and eating pizza is more attractive to the great unwashed.

Cheers
Terry

 

[R. Steve Walz]

This is true. I alas have never suffered from Faith (or that annoying
habit of Capitalising words to prevent rational discourse

------------------
Nothing wrong with upper case.

As a Fur'ner, I know little about Republocrats and Demicans, so can
neither confirm nor deny - although of course the Abrahamic link is
undeniable (but rarely mentioned). They are however clearly not islamic,
which I think most people know, thereby illustrating my creative use of
the principle of Reductio Ad Absurdum to demolish the pathetic straw man
put up by DMO'C.

Cheers
Terry

----------
Not everything that seems indirect actually Reductio's Ad Absurdum.

Republicans are in favor of "Let the Market Decide", namely who gets
to own everything and to enslave the rest of us, and they believe
that this will magically make/keep them in the position of the
slave-masters of the planet. They are frightened by unlimited
Democracy because they know it has the power to strip them of
their unearned wealth and power they have stolen from the rest
of us. They seek to frighten the Majority out of using its power
to change the economic system, using disinforming threats and
appeals to backward power-worshipping religions with which they
are forced to align, though they are repeatedly caught violating
their strictures, to which they secretly have no actual adherence.
Republicans are inherent liars to obtain wealth and power and are
thus actually amoral.

Democrats are in favor of the Majority deciding, not merely what
clowns will next hold office and what they are limited to deciding,
to which that mere shadow of Its actual Promise Democracy has so far
been restricted, but also how the economic system is structured and
how it is permitted to function and with what result. Democracy can
decide who owns what, and why! The only lies Democrats tell are in
service to defeating the amoral criminal Republicans.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.

-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to, this is the
essence of slavery! They want you to do their work for NO PAYMENT,
in other words, as well as your own for the usual rate. Thus if they
pay you only for yours, then they pay you half what they should,
and pay themselves what they DO NOT EARN!! This is the meaning of
ALL wealth, NOT HAVING TO WORK BECAUSE YOU HAVE SLAVES! NO person
does not have to work merely because they have some magical "money",
they ALL rely on the rest of us doing ALL THEIR WORK *FOR* THEM AS
THEIR SLAVES!! Anyone who wants to be able to "not have to work again"
ACTUALLY means that they wish to ENSLAVE some of the RESt of us who
DO HAVE TO WORK! Thus ALL striving after wealth so that one does not
have to work is actually the desire and intent to ENSLAVE OTHERS!!

Pretty feeble argument. So I point out Israel has compulsory
military service (and sure as shit aint socialist; there are plenty of
european countries that do too IIRC), easily flattening the weak
implication. So DMO'C turns around with his "just because socialists do
it doesnt mean non-socialist cant" argument. In other words, doing
something a socialist does, does not necessarily make you a socialist,
which is pretty much in direct contradiction to his first statement.

--------------------------------
Israel DOES have a Socialist system! They have nationalized health,
education, retirement, vacations, and support for those who cannot
work. And MOST of Europe certainly *IS* Socialist!

too literal Steve. The implication (a-la DMO'Cs feeble argument) is that
republicans must therefore be islamic, which they are not. ergo its a
stupid thing to imply. see above

-----------------------------
Few would be so stupid as to assume that. The implied allusion was
clearly that those two religions are both sexually backward Fundy
religions of the Abrahamic stripe, well known for being sexually
insipid and moronic. Only someone like I heard on a radio show the
other day ranting that the Mormons should all be taken to Guantanamo
because he assumed that "Mormons" were some kind of American "Muslim"
would assume something like that, and only out of abyssmal ignorance,
despite the totally accidental aptness of that claim against Mormonism,
because they are quite nearly as Fundy as the nuttyist Islamics!!

 

[R. Steve Walz]

dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?

--------------------------------
Since it takes between 1% and 2% (it varies year to year) to own 50%
of the US wealth, that wouldn't be true.

Mind you 80% of the worlds food comes from 4 crops - potatoes, corn,
rice, wheat.

------------------------------
I don't see the relation.

The intersting thing about darwinism is that he based a lot of his > ideas
on economic theories of the time, which basically were the strong eat
the weak.

-------------------
The Myth called "Social Darwinism" is not in any way, shape, or form
based on Darwin's Evolution of Species or natural selection.

NO competent theory of evolution suggests that advanced species such
as ours evolved by the strongest guys winning out, or we'd all look
like Neanderthal SwarzeNazi's, and you know what happened to the
Neanderthals!! They ain't here now! Humans evolved to be chief species
by being a hundred times MORE group-cooperative and group-coordinated
than any other species on this rock, and NOT by fighting amongst
ourselves AT ALL! Our superiority resides in keeping the brightest of
our nerds supported by the collective so they could innovate. It
resides in everybody running at danger to one of our weak, not running
away from it. We scared the shit out of every predator on earth because
we did things they didn't evolve to counter, like running at them en
masse, throwing things, and stabbing with sharp spears all at once!
NO other animal does anything like that, the non-victims flee, they
don't counter-attack en masse instantly as we do!

Alas, the majority are sheep.

----------------
Except for that once in a while when they're not, otherwise we would
all still be serfs superintended in the fields by knights on horseback.

Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs.