A question for Apolyton's righties

monkspider · January 20, 2003, 15:47

I have been doing a lot of thinking on the nature of righties who possess a certain modicum of intelligence lately, so I pose this question to you all: which of the following two hypothetical scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario A: A worldwide communist worker's paradise where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, but you only make an average ammount of money.

Scenario B: A world controlled by a right-wing dictatorship of a most brutal nature, where thousands die almost every day, and millions suffer. However, due to a fortuitous turn of events, your father was an extremely loyal supporter of the regime, and as a result you have a cushy government job that puts you in the top 1% of the population, income wise.

Now ignore any reservations about the nature of communism, or of right-wing regimes. Just assume that everything I have said is literally true. Which of the aforementioned two scenarios would you prefer?

Starchild · January 20, 2003, 15:51

Is there the possibility of me overthrowing the dictator and being worshipped as a god by the oppressed masses?

(Starchild: Not rightwing, just self serving)

Goingonit · January 20, 2003, 15:52

Even if people actually do want #2, I think nobody will answer it.

I'm a scenario #1 man myself.

JohnT · January 20, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
I have been doing a lot of thinking on the nature of righties who possess a certain modicum of intelligence lately, so I pose this question to you all: which of the following two hypothetical scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario A: A worldwide communist worker's paradise where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, but you only make an average ammount of money.

Scenario B: A world controlled by a right-wing dictatorship of a most brutal nature, where thousands die almost every day, and millions suffer. However, do to a fortuitous turn of events, your father was extremely loyal supporter of the regime, and as a result you have a cushy government job that puts you in the top 1% of the population, income wise.

Now ignore any reservations about the nature of communism, or of right-wing regimes. Just assume that everything I have said is literally true. Which of the aforementioned two scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario A, of course. Unless you think every Lefty agrees with Stalin?

Az · January 20, 2003, 15:56

this is not challenging enough. this is just a check how selfish they're.

how about:

An anarchist-capitalist system where full freedoms exist as described by the theories of Libertarians, but poor people suffer and die, from lack of medication, malnutrition, etc., This of course is supported by a group of individuals that form the executive and the judiciary branch that strictly adhere to those laws, NO MATTER WHAT, even violence, brutality, etc.

OR

Scenario A.

Timexwatch · January 20, 2003, 15:57

What a loaded question.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

Ned · January 20, 2003, 15:57

Quote:

Originally posted by monkspider
I have been doing a lot of thinking on the nature of righties who possess a certain modicum of intelligence lately, so I pose this question to you all: which of the following two hypothetical scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario A: A worldwide communist worker's paradise where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, but you only make an average ammount of money.

Scenario B: A world controlled by a right-wing dictatorship of a most brutal nature, where thousands die almost every day, and millions suffer. However, do to a fortuitous turn of events, your father was extremely loyal supporter of the regime, and as a result you have a cushy government job that puts you in the top 1% of the population, income wise.

Now ignore any reservations about the nature of communism, or of right-wing regimes. Just assume that everything I have said is literally true. Which of the aforementioned two scenarios would you prefer?

I absolutely am convinced that much of the world's leftism is caused by a reaction to Hitler, Tojo and Mussulini.

monkspider · January 20, 2003, 15:59

Which of the scenarios would you prefer though, Ned?

JohnT · January 20, 2003, 16:00

Except that Stalin and Lenin were on the scene earlier.

JohnT · January 20, 2003, 16:03

You know, I have been doing a lot of thinking on the nature of Lefties who possess a certain modicum of intelligence lately, so I pose this question to you all: which of the following two hypothetical scenarios would you prefer?

Scenario A: A worldwide Fascist paradise where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, and you can make as much jack as you damn well please.

Scenario B: A world controlled by a Left-Wing dictatorship of a most brutal nature, where thousands die almost every day, and millions suffer - ala Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. However, do to a fortuitous turn of events, your father was extremely loyal supporter of the regime, and as a result you have a cushy government job that puts you in the top 1% of the population, income wise. (Which is how the revolution of the proletariat turns out in case after case).

Now ignore any reservations about the nature of communism, or of fascism. Just assume that everything I have said is literally true. Which of the aforementioned two scenarios would you prefer?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now excuse me while I roll my eyes again:

Oerdin · January 20, 2003, 16:03

It's kind of a false delema.Why pretend nothing wlse exists when it does exist in the real world?

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 16:06

Given the stipulation that "A" is not possible in reality,
I'll choose "A".

red_jon · January 20, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

I absolutely am convinced that much of the world's leftism is caused by a reaction to Hitler, Tojo and Mussulini.

What about the expansion of civil rights and welfare programmes? Leftism has been around for hundreds of years.

But yeah, people will go more left after experiencing people like Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini, just as people will go right after experiencing Stalin.

chequita guevara · January 20, 2003, 16:14

I'm gonna have to say this isn't a very good dichotomy. A is setup as the wonderful one, so only a fool would chose B.

JohnT, while it's true that Stalin was on the scene earlier, his reign of terror really doesn't begin until Htiler rises to power. They were two sides of the same coin of reaction. Had Hitler been defeated, the USSR wouldn't have had the extreme threat of Fascism to "justify" the measures it took. Even futher, had the communists come to power in Germany, Stalin would have fallen, since his regime depended upon industrial scarcity.

Boris Godunov · January 20, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Starchild
Not rightwing, just self serving)

To-may-to, To-mah-to...

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 16:16

I really don't want to hear too much from "Lefties".

Not one single thread commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It's not like I'm responsible for reminding you of important things.

Take it on down the road.
Go on!
Get!

orange · January 20, 2003, 16:25

sorry, I'm with the righties on this...scenario isn't balanced...i did something similar a while back with libertarians...

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 16:28

orange, just be a moderate. The one thing that makes sense.

And WTG, John.

Traianvs · January 20, 2003, 16:47

Quote:

orange, just be a moderate. The one thing that makes sense.

Ah and so you are a moderate then??
Well that just depends on what you think being moderate is...

I think that's different to you than to me, so you're being a little bit vague

Japher · January 20, 2003, 16:51

So, I get choose from either having everything I want without making anyone mad or jealous, because they also have everything they want.

or

I can choose to have everything I want and have everyone else jealous of me because I am old money.

Silly question, and I am a righty by your "philosophy".

What I want is a combo of the two. Or, at least to have everyone jealous of me because I have everything and they don't, but I worked my knuckles to the bone to get what I wanted while the smoked their dope and got liquered up all night, everynight, for their whole lives.

My "philosophy":

A. No one should get what they want merely because they want it.
B. Everyone should get what they need merely becuase the need it.

Neither case works.

Edan · January 20, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"Not rightwing, just self serving "

To-may-to, To-mah-to...

I would say that the majority of rightwingers tend to be a pretty selfless lot, given how they vote against their own self-interests.

Personally, I think the original proposal is stupid. The second one is obviosuly bad, and the first, if it were even feasable, wouln't last very long. I prefer the here and now to either of them.

orange · January 20, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
orange, just be a moderate. The one thing that makes sense.

No thanks

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus

Ah and so you are a moderate then??
Well that just depends on what you think being moderate is...

I think that's different to you than to me, so you're being a little bit vague

I'm vague? This (see your quote) isn't vague?
Have you got a particular question, or are you just flapping your lips?
If you're just flapping your lips, stop.
You're creating one hell of a draft.

Boris Godunov · January 20, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

I would say that the majority of rightwingers tend to be a pretty selfless lot, given how they vote against their own self-interests.

You mean the wealthy right-wingers voting themselves tax cuts, the racist right-wingers voting because they want to keep racial purity, or the gun-nut right-wingers who vote so dat dar Fed-ee-ral govuhment doesn't take away their preciouses?

Az · January 20, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Scenario A: A worldwide Fascist paradise where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, and you can make as much jack as you damn well please.

Scenario B: A world controlled by a Left-Wing dictatorship of a most brutal nature, where thousands die almost every day, and millions suffer - ala Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. However, do to a fortuitous turn of events, your father was extremely loyal supporter of the regime, and as a result you have a cushy government job that puts you in the top 1% of the population, income wise. (Which is how the revolution of the proletariat turns out in case after case).

Scenario A, it's clear.

My philosphy is utilitarian, the current most fitting social construct is a socialist one.

Ben Kenobi · January 20, 2003, 17:10

Slowwhand,
you beat me to the comment that a is not feasible and will not be accomplished.

To stop this troll, why don't we change the question to, assuming the communist workers paradise is unavailable in the real world, would you choose a corrupt, liberal democracy or a harsh fascist dictatorship?

This is a righties only party Boris.

Edan · January 20, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You mean the wealthy right-wingers voting themselves tax cuts, the racist right-wingers voting because they want to keep racial purity, or the gun-nut right-wingers who vote so dat dar Fed-ee-ral govuhment doesn't take away their preciouses?

Well, my comment was meant to be a joke, but I'd say the non-wealthy right-wingers who vote to get tax cuts (particularily since, as far as I can tell, thats the one single issue that tends to be pretty consistent amoung all republicans).

Arrian · January 20, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

You mean the wealthy right-wingers voting themselves tax cuts, the racist right-wingers voting because they want to keep racial purity, or the gun-nut right-wingers who vote so dat dar Fed-ee-ral govuhment doesn't take away their preciouses?

Oh, and "the left" doesn't get votes based on self interest?

Newsflash: most people act in accordance with their self interest (or rather what they believe to be their self interest). This would apply to the poor voting for more taxes on the rich (to line it up with your example: voting to take the preciousess from the rich so they can have some).

Monkspider,

All due respect man, but that question was the result of "a lot of thinking?" Come on! Maybe, just maybe, you could get Fez to pick option "B" but would that accomplish or prove anything?

-Arrian

Lawrence of Arabia · January 20, 2003, 17:23

I think Fez's account is gone. I searched the member list and found a Fez, but I dont think its the right one.

In that case,

Ding dong, the Fez is gone.

Traianvs · January 20, 2003, 17:24

Quote:

I'm vague? This (see your quote) isn't vague?
Have you got a particular question, or are you just flapping your lips?
If you're just flapping your lips, stop.
You're creating one hell of a draft.

Haha, Slowwhand, as always, has to be insulting and a hell of a ***** again, when I'm just asking you a question, and I even added a smiley as a sign of my goodwill!

Well I'll answer it for you, I think you're an arrogant rightwing bush-worshipper that doesn't even listen to arguments coming from the left side, you just try to avoid them by replying with this kind of ****... you're not moderate man, not in my opinion, maybe you think you're moderate, but not in my eyes... So you think you got that now? yes? good boy! Now maybe you can reply to that in an orderly way, and deny that, giving a good argument, and then I might be persuaded to think otherwise... that is a tactic you have never thought of I suppose!

Quote:

What I want is a combo of the two. Or, at least to have everyone jealous of me because I have everything and they don't, but I worked my knuckles to the bone to get what I wanted while the smoked their dope and got liquered up all night, everynight, for their whole lives.

Errr, matey, don't you have any idea that there are poor people that don't have any money, not because they're lazy, but because they don't get the chances that others have, or simply because of bad luck (or various other reasons).

I read in the paper that many American programmers etc have to go to charity organisations in order to get a bowl of soup and some other food... Now they're not really to blame actually, many ppl look hard for a job, but sometimes they just can't find it...

Also is it so fair then that some people earn huge amounts of money just by doing nothing, or nearly nothing, and others have to do hard labour and still get a meager amount of money?