Ah, the other 20% don't condone suicide bombings. I believe the question was along the lines of, "are suicide bombings ever justified?" and some of that 20% said yes, sometimes they are.
And you look like someone who has a self image to defend. I mean, if I step on your toes, I must hate you. Or toes. No? But it still hurt anyway? Well I'm sorry then, and I'll try not to step on your toes in the future. Get it?
Just because you have the right to be rude doesn't mean that I have to shut up when you are. I have a right to say that I think you are being rude. Oh, and it's pretty indicative of your personality that you feel the need to post unpopular opinions as an AC. I feel sorry for you, all caught up in your ego-self, thinking your self image is your true self. Sad. Have fun feeling trapped, isolated, and besieged for the rest of your life. And when you die, you lose the game forever. Very, very sad.
I heard that a Federal phone tax was implemented to help pay for WWII. They were supposed to end it after the war, but they didn't. It was finally repealed last year, thus the tax form question about phone tax rebates this year, remember that?
You're right. Instead it teaches that all beliefs and cultures are EQUAL, which is almost worse.
Does it? Does it really? Or is that just what the vocal minority of proponents of multiculturalism believe? Sensationalism sells, and so what you hear reported about a group or movement is often not at all what the majority actually believes.
Can you point out anywhere that multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures are equal? Care to quote a multiculturalist who says the Nazi's were okay dudes? Anyone out there advocating that we should all give cannibalism a try before condemning it? No? Thought not.
You have been listening to propaganda about Muslims. Have you talked to any? I have, and you are absolutely, 100% wrong. It's the same as if I were to judge all Christians by the actions of a few lunatics who bomb abortions or picket gay funerals. Most Muslims are no different from people anywhere, they just want to live and let live.
I get the sense that you are a person who sees the world in black and white, and who longs for the sense of purpose, moral superiority, and sanctioned violent vengeance that comes from having a demonic enemy. You might want to spend a little more looking inside yourself for the roots of violence and hatred, and a little less time demonizing Muslims.
No one is a protected group. I call people for making fun of the French, too. Demonizing others without cause is wrong, no matter who the "other" is. Including Muslims. Fortunately, society has and will continue to stand up to small minded people who unjustly demonize others. Certain people want all such do-gooders to shut the hell up and stop pointing out what ignorant, bigoted hate-filled people they are, but we will not.
No, equitable and equal are not the same. Most people would rather feel the world is a fair place than benefit from unfairness. People feel good with a moderate but equitable imbalance. Even if they aren't smart and they don't work hard, they feel good knowing that if they did, they would be rewarded. I think even as high as a 100-1 wealth cap would feel fair to most people. Look at the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain, they started with a 5-1 wealth cap but have since raised it. Sure, there was a small outcry when the cap was raised, but nothing huge. People accept that a certain amount of imbalance is actually far more fair and just than complete equality.
First, multiculturalism doesn't teach that anything non-western is superior. Sure, there are some loons out there who take it too far, just as there are loons in any unbalanced situation who want to swing the pendulum all the way in the other direction, thinking that two wrongs will somehow make a right. The fact is that there has been an unrealistic emphasis on western accomplishments to the detriment of learning real history, so a little balance is okay.
Your first point, however, is right on. We as a society need to take responsibility. We need the courage to stand up when we feel something is wrong and say so. But it needs to be done without anger , hatred, or intolerance in order to work.
Here's an example, a coworker made a sexist remark the other day. I could have over reacted, gotten upset and angrily denounced him, but that would only have gotten his back up and forced him to deny that he was being sexist. So I said, "Hey, I know you didn't mean it that way, but what you just said could be considered pretty sexist. There are a lot of women in our office who would feel hurt if they heard that, I'm sure you don't want to do that." That gave him an out, he admitted he hadn't really meant to come across that way and agreed to try not to do it again.
That may not work on the loons leading these Muslims into violence and hatred, but it will work on the majority of Muslims who are peace loving individuals who just want to live and let live like the rest of us. Have courage, stay calm, remember that most of the time when people act out in inappropriate ways what they really want is a little adult attention and guidance. Together we can put an end to hatred and intolerance but we can't use hatred and intolerance to do it.
Really? So all major Christian pundits denounce abortion clinic bombings? That's news to me. You know why you don't hear Muslims denouncing suicide bombing? Because our news media doesn't think that's a story that will sell. 80% of Muslims denounce suicide bombings, your news sources just don't care if you know that or not.
Very nice, I take back my insults regarding your debating skills. Mostly, I like to post humorous quips or metaphysical/spiritual/philosophical musings, but every so often my dark and trollish side gets a hold of me. My inner troll has a taste for libertarians. You could probably figure out who all the major libertarians on Slashdot are just by looking at my foes list.
Star nosed moles are so ugly they've wrapped right back around into cute. Kinda like pug dogs. Now, naked mole rats took a wrong turn after they hit ugly and veered off into monstrously hideous instead of wrapping back to cute. Most people would breath a sigh of relief knowing a naked mole rat got whacked.
Oh of course it's possible to make tofu delicious. I's possible to make nearly anything delicious if you deep fry it and slather it with tasty sauce. Oh man, there's this Thai place in San Francisco near SF General that makes the most delicious deep fried tofu with peanut sauce. That's the kind of tofu I like.
I have not met many open minded libertarians. The real problem I have with libertarianism is the core concept of strong property rights, which are based on the idea that property is a negative right. It is in fact a positive right: the right to exclude others without having a contract with those others. Libertarians are very closed minded when it comes to property.
I know that anarcho-socialists can look a lot like communists or socialists, but we are not. Early anarchists critiqued Marx's ideas, saying they would lead to the same end as the capitalism he criticized, namely, oligarchy. Read Property is Theft! by Proudhon, he outlines my issues nicely. More importantly, he brings up a point of ambivalence I have: property is also inherently anarchist, as it opposes all forms of state power.
The difference between anarcho-socialists and socialists or communists is that we want our society organized by voluntary cooperation, from the bottom up, and they want it imposed by force from the top down.
I can empathize with animals. For instance, there's this cow that's feeling particularly delicious today. Hehe. I tried the whole vegan thing for a year, man, I couldn't hack it. Oh God! The tofu nightmares are coming back... Get thee behind me, Seitan!
The same exact thing could be said of the market. People in market systems like power and those with power collude with others with power to keep the vast majority from having any. Property and markets are important checks, I am not saying do away with them altogether. I am arguing against the libertarian concept of absolute property rights because such rights do away with the checks that government places on markets and property. Checks and balances need to work in a negative feedback loop, one check balancing the next around in a circle. Libertarians argue that property and markets are their own checks, I say that is untrue, that property and markets are inherently unbalanced because acquisition of more resources gives one more control over how the market values one's resources.
You are saying the same thing over and over, without understanding or even appearing to try to understand what I am saying. This is a big issue I have with libertarians, it is as if they do not even properly understand what they are saying. It is as if they are repeating a magical mantra, they don't need to know why it works, they just need everyone to believe that it works. When libertarians are challenged on their beliefs, they can neither properly articulate a defense of them nor say why the other parties logic is flawed, they simply resort to parroting back what the princes of libertarianism have told them to say. I understand what you are saying perfectly well, I just don't think what you are saying is making the point you think it is making.
But if people have a monopoly on food, you either sell your thoughts for what they say they are worth, or you starve. We see plenty of owners acting in collusion with other owners to use monetary force to alter market relationships. My God, are you that dense or are you deliberately not understanding the issue here?
Yeah, because "fist sport!1!!" is so much less inane than amusing faux news stories about incompetent Martian leaders. You trolls all hate him because he took your coveted first posts away, don't you?
You do not need to tell me about protester arrests, I've been there. Critical mass, heh, nothing like biking down alleys in a breakaway pack of 100, dodging police the whole way. Stay on the route, my ass. As for property rights being a privilege, I agree. Property is a positive right: the right to exclude others, not a negative right: the right to be free from property seizure.
In our democratic system, there are means to address imbalances in rights. In a system of absolute property rights, there is no way to protect yourself from the owning class.
True. But capitalism is a form of coercive slavery, where anyone without the money and property with which to protect themselves can be forced into servitude. Some would say that under libertarianism, the state exists only to provide a police force to keep the slaves in line.
I've been trying to formulate a variety of socialism that would work within a capitalist framework, where it is entirely opt-in. The key would be trade restriction contracts, that is, in order to be a member of a group, you would have to agree never to trade in any way with anyone who does not uphold certain basic rights, like the rights to food, water, shelter, and medicine.
Have you ever seen a game where a dog sidekick added to the experience
Nethack. Teaching your dog to steal from shops, the fear of seeing them disappear through a trap door, the danger of them going feral, I think it added a lot to that game.
I agree about seeing animals get hurt, why is that more heart-wrenching than seeing people get hurt? Is it because animals are innocent? Because they are relatively helpless? I don't know, but I've always felt that way.
Your time and thoughts won't grow food. When you are starving, you will trade any amount of time and thought for a very little food. Time and thought are in no way equal to natural resources.
You have not shown that individual ownership is preferable to democratic control. If it is, why then are democracies preferred over dictatorships? You also say my predictions aren't likely, but offer no reasons why. States may have systems of checks and balances, the free market does not. Collusion among individuals where one person has one vote is much harder than collusion in a system where one dollar is one vote.
No, I would have interlocking systems of constitutional democratic control of resources instead of a few rich bastards owning everything. Only a rich bastard could fail to comprehend why that is a good thing.
Dominance in property can coerce, because crimes against property are initiation of force in libertarian doublethink. If I prevent you from eating, and you try to take my apples, I am justified in killing you, in libertarian lala land. So I can force you to do anything I want in order for you to survive. There may be no other properties, we are certainly witnessing the conglomeration of power and ownership, there is no reason to think it won't continue or even accelerate.
In an ideal world there would be many small systems of democratic control of resources that band together into federations of mutual protection and support, so people would have recourse to these other systems. If all property is owned, and the owners are colluding to maintain control, I have no recourse.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, the other 20% don't condone suicide bombings. I believe the question was along the lines of, "are suicide bombings ever justified?" and some of that 20% said yes, sometimes they are.
And you look like someone who has a self image to defend. I mean, if I step on your toes, I must hate you. Or toes. No? But it still hurt anyway? Well I'm sorry then, and I'll try not to step on your toes in the future. Get it?
Just because you have the right to be rude doesn't mean that I have to shut up when you are. I have a right to say that I think you are being rude. Oh, and it's pretty indicative of your personality that you feel the need to post unpopular opinions as an AC. I feel sorry for you, all caught up in your ego-self, thinking your self image is your true self. Sad. Have fun feeling trapped, isolated, and besieged for the rest of your life. And when you die, you lose the game forever. Very, very sad.
I heard that a Federal phone tax was implemented to help pay for WWII. They were supposed to end it after the war, but they didn't. It was finally repealed last year, thus the tax form question about phone tax rebates this year, remember that?
You're right. Instead it teaches that all beliefs and cultures are EQUAL, which is almost worse.
Does it? Does it really? Or is that just what the vocal minority of proponents of multiculturalism believe? Sensationalism sells, and so what you hear reported about a group or movement is often not at all what the majority actually believes.
Can you point out anywhere that multiculturalism is the belief that all cultures are equal? Care to quote a multiculturalist who says the Nazi's were okay dudes? Anyone out there advocating that we should all give cannibalism a try before condemning it? No? Thought not.
You have been listening to propaganda about Muslims. Have you talked to any? I have, and you are absolutely, 100% wrong. It's the same as if I were to judge all Christians by the actions of a few lunatics who bomb abortions or picket gay funerals. Most Muslims are no different from people anywhere, they just want to live and let live.
I get the sense that you are a person who sees the world in black and white, and who longs for the sense of purpose, moral superiority, and sanctioned violent vengeance that comes from having a demonic enemy. You might want to spend a little more looking inside yourself for the roots of violence and hatred, and a little less time demonizing Muslims.
No one is a protected group. I call people for making fun of the French, too. Demonizing others without cause is wrong, no matter who the "other" is. Including Muslims. Fortunately, society has and will continue to stand up to small minded people who unjustly demonize others. Certain people want all such do-gooders to shut the hell up and stop pointing out what ignorant, bigoted hate-filled people they are, but we will not.
No, equitable and equal are not the same. Most people would rather feel the world is a fair place than benefit from unfairness. People feel good with a moderate but equitable imbalance. Even if they aren't smart and they don't work hard, they feel good knowing that if they did, they would be rewarded. I think even as high as a 100-1 wealth cap would feel fair to most people. Look at the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain, they started with a 5-1 wealth cap but have since raised it. Sure, there was a small outcry when the cap was raised, but nothing huge. People accept that a certain amount of imbalance is actually far more fair and just than complete equality.
First, multiculturalism doesn't teach that anything non-western is superior. Sure, there are some loons out there who take it too far, just as there are loons in any unbalanced situation who want to swing the pendulum all the way in the other direction, thinking that two wrongs will somehow make a right. The fact is that there has been an unrealistic emphasis on western accomplishments to the detriment of learning real history, so a little balance is okay.
Your first point, however, is right on. We as a society need to take responsibility. We need the courage to stand up when we feel something is wrong and say so. But it needs to be done without anger , hatred, or intolerance in order to work.
Here's an example, a coworker made a sexist remark the other day. I could have over reacted, gotten upset and angrily denounced him, but that would only have gotten his back up and forced him to deny that he was being sexist. So I said, "Hey, I know you didn't mean it that way, but what you just said could be considered pretty sexist. There are a lot of women in our office who would feel hurt if they heard that, I'm sure you don't want to do that." That gave him an out, he admitted he hadn't really meant to come across that way and agreed to try not to do it again.
That may not work on the loons leading these Muslims into violence and hatred, but it will work on the majority of Muslims who are peace loving individuals who just want to live and let live like the rest of us. Have courage, stay calm, remember that most of the time when people act out in inappropriate ways what they really want is a little adult attention and guidance. Together we can put an end to hatred and intolerance but we can't use hatred and intolerance to do it.
Really? So all major Christian pundits denounce abortion clinic bombings? That's news to me. You know why you don't hear Muslims denouncing suicide bombing? Because our news media doesn't think that's a story that will sell. 80% of Muslims denounce suicide bombings, your news sources just don't care if you know that or not.
Very nice, I take back my insults regarding your debating skills. Mostly, I like to post humorous quips or metaphysical/spiritual/philosophical musings, but every so often my dark and trollish side gets a hold of me. My inner troll has a taste for libertarians. You could probably figure out who all the major libertarians on Slashdot are just by looking at my foes list.
Star nosed moles are so ugly they've wrapped right back around into cute. Kinda like pug dogs. Now, naked mole rats took a wrong turn after they hit ugly and veered off into monstrously hideous instead of wrapping back to cute. Most people would breath a sigh of relief knowing a naked mole rat got whacked.
Oh of course it's possible to make tofu delicious. I's possible to make nearly anything delicious if you deep fry it and slather it with tasty sauce. Oh man, there's this Thai place in San Francisco near SF General that makes the most delicious deep fried tofu with peanut sauce. That's the kind of tofu I like.
I have not met many open minded libertarians. The real problem I have with libertarianism is the core concept of strong property rights, which are based on the idea that property is a negative right. It is in fact a positive right: the right to exclude others without having a contract with those others. Libertarians are very closed minded when it comes to property.
I know that anarcho-socialists can look a lot like communists or socialists, but we are not. Early anarchists critiqued Marx's ideas, saying they would lead to the same end as the capitalism he criticized, namely, oligarchy. Read Property is Theft! by Proudhon, he outlines my issues nicely. More importantly, he brings up a point of ambivalence I have: property is also inherently anarchist, as it opposes all forms of state power.
The difference between anarcho-socialists and socialists or communists is that we want our society organized by voluntary cooperation, from the bottom up, and they want it imposed by force from the top down.
I can empathize with animals. For instance, there's this cow that's feeling particularly delicious today. Hehe. I tried the whole vegan thing for a year, man, I couldn't hack it. Oh God! The tofu nightmares are coming back... Get thee behind me, Seitan!
Crotchpot?!? Crotchpot, there's a euphemism I haven't heard before. "Oh man, her crotchpot was really cooking!"
The same exact thing could be said of the market. People in market systems like power and those with power collude with others with power to keep the vast majority from having any. Property and markets are important checks, I am not saying do away with them altogether. I am arguing against the libertarian concept of absolute property rights because such rights do away with the checks that government places on markets and property. Checks and balances need to work in a negative feedback loop, one check balancing the next around in a circle. Libertarians argue that property and markets are their own checks, I say that is untrue, that property and markets are inherently unbalanced because acquisition of more resources gives one more control over how the market values one's resources.
You are saying the same thing over and over, without understanding or even appearing to try to understand what I am saying. This is a big issue I have with libertarians, it is as if they do not even properly understand what they are saying. It is as if they are repeating a magical mantra, they don't need to know why it works, they just need everyone to believe that it works. When libertarians are challenged on their beliefs, they can neither properly articulate a defense of them nor say why the other parties logic is flawed, they simply resort to parroting back what the princes of libertarianism have told them to say. I understand what you are saying perfectly well, I just don't think what you are saying is making the point you think it is making.
But if people have a monopoly on food, you either sell your thoughts for what they say they are worth, or you starve. We see plenty of owners acting in collusion with other owners to use monetary force to alter market relationships. My God, are you that dense or are you deliberately not understanding the issue here?
Yeah, because "fist sport!1!!" is so much less inane than amusing faux news stories about incompetent Martian leaders. You trolls all hate him because he took your coveted first posts away, don't you?
You do not need to tell me about protester arrests, I've been there. Critical mass, heh, nothing like biking down alleys in a breakaway pack of 100, dodging police the whole way. Stay on the route, my ass. As for property rights being a privilege, I agree. Property is a positive right: the right to exclude others, not a negative right: the right to be free from property seizure.
In our democratic system, there are means to address imbalances in rights. In a system of absolute property rights, there is no way to protect yourself from the owning class.
True. But capitalism is a form of coercive slavery, where anyone without the money and property with which to protect themselves can be forced into servitude. Some would say that under libertarianism, the state exists only to provide a police force to keep the slaves in line.
I've been trying to formulate a variety of socialism that would work within a capitalist framework, where it is entirely opt-in. The key would be trade restriction contracts, that is, in order to be a member of a group, you would have to agree never to trade in any way with anyone who does not uphold certain basic rights, like the rights to food, water, shelter, and medicine.
Nethack. Teaching your dog to steal from shops, the fear of seeing them disappear through a trap door, the danger of them going feral, I think it added a lot to that game.
I agree about seeing animals get hurt, why is that more heart-wrenching than seeing people get hurt? Is it because animals are innocent? Because they are relatively helpless? I don't know, but I've always felt that way.
Bullshit. Where has it been shown? In what state has democratic control of resources been tried? Nice straw man. Idiot.
Your time and thoughts won't grow food. When you are starving, you will trade any amount of time and thought for a very little food. Time and thought are in no way equal to natural resources.
You have not shown that individual ownership is preferable to democratic control. If it is, why then are democracies preferred over dictatorships? You also say my predictions aren't likely, but offer no reasons why. States may have systems of checks and balances, the free market does not. Collusion among individuals where one person has one vote is much harder than collusion in a system where one dollar is one vote.
No, I would have interlocking systems of constitutional democratic control of resources instead of a few rich bastards owning everything. Only a rich bastard could fail to comprehend why that is a good thing.
Dominance in property can coerce, because crimes against property are initiation of force in libertarian doublethink. If I prevent you from eating, and you try to take my apples, I am justified in killing you, in libertarian lala land. So I can force you to do anything I want in order for you to survive. There may be no other properties, we are certainly witnessing the conglomeration of power and ownership, there is no reason to think it won't continue or even accelerate.
In an ideal world there would be many small systems of democratic control of resources that band together into federations of mutual protection and support, so people would have recourse to these other systems. If all property is owned, and the owners are colluding to maintain control, I have no recourse.