A question for Apolyton's righties - Page 2

chequita guevara · January 20, 2003, 17:24

Fez said he's never coming back.

Traianvs · January 20, 2003, 17:26

aha, I missed something here? what's up with him

?

Arrian · January 20, 2003, 17:28

I just used him as a harmless example (all the more harmless if he's gone for good, eh?).

-Arrian

JCG · January 20, 2003, 17:30

Even if A doesn't sound bad in theory, the options are obviously biased, so neither.

Japher · January 20, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

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?

Que?

When did I attack anyone? All I gave was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical answer. I attacked no one, nor did I make any gross generalization. All I stated is that I want to be rewarded for MY hard work and recognized for ME overcoming my difficulties, bad luck, and stents at the soup line. Is that so bad? Is it soooo bad that I can't have what I want in a hypothetical world, or even this one for that matter? I didn't say that I would get there by stepping on toes, being the source of others ill will, or by firing some poor sod.

You may fancy yourself some caring, feeling, giving humaitarian because you WANT to help others succeed and better themselves, and maybe you are. Yet I have a hard truth to share; life is not fair, and it never will be.

So while everyone continues to whine and cry about not having (money, opportunities, and handouts) I will be out there earning and making my own money, creating my own opportunities, and handing out my own handouts. So that one day I will be actually BE ABLE to help some people out of their dilemas and into a life full of success and other amenities that come with living the American Dream, instead of still being a whinner and consoler of failures.

DuncanK · January 20, 2003, 17:42

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?!

Leftism is the result of an inadequate capitalist system. There are always more leftists in a country where the capitalist system is doing very poorly.

Boris Godunov · January 20, 2003, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

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).

I don't think many poor rural white voters who vote Republican do so because of the tax issue. See the gun issue there. Then there's also the religious right vote, which is also largely out of self-interest.

Arrian--I didn't say left wingers always vote out of selflessness. I just believe being right-wing inherently involves adopting a more selfish ideology. That's not necessarily making a value judgment on that ideology (although I'd be glad to do that, too!

)

JohnT · January 20, 2003, 17:46

"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... "

Cite?

cavebear · January 20, 2003, 17:46

Both scenario's are skewed, having each one positive and one selfish choice. The more difficult choice is between the idealized version of each. Keeping in mind that one elevates the individual and self-rule (assuming that government will eventually become unneeded), and the other elevates a permanent beneficent but all-powerful) government that will organize services to the highest benefit of the state for the benefit of all citizens:

Scenario A: A worldwide communist worker's world where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, but material luxuries are not emphasized

Scenario B: A worldwide nationalist world where security and order are the law of the land and everyone is materially well off, but individual rights are not emphasized.

We'll presume that one can't have both guaranteed individual security AND a high degree of individual rights.

I'd rather see a discussion over difficult choices than an opportunity for sloganeering. Which probably means no one will respond.

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus

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!

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?

You make the assumption that I give a rat's ass what you think about me.
Let me clear up your misconception. I don't care at all.
I've had worse on my eyeball, and been called much worse by much better people than you.
What's clear is you don't have the foggiest notion of me, my personal situation, or my views.
If you did, you wouldn't make such dumbass observations.

Arrian · January 20, 2003, 17:54

Cavebear:

Quote:

Scenario A: A worldwide communist worker's world where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, but material luxuries are not emphasized

That's still a skewed question. Have a look at the part I bolded. If everyone is happy, this is clearly the winner. Of course, everyone being happy, even under the most uptopian of systems, is a pipe dream.

-Arrian

Japher · January 20, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

I just believe being right-wing inherently involves adopting a more selfish ideology.

I think that I could see how you would BELIEVE that.

Yet, I your statement is based on short-sightedness and represents a view that is not only prejudice, but void of any true reason.

If you were to say that being right-wing appears selfish, that would be fine.

Perhaps you can go more into what you believe that ideology is, because I just don't get were this comes from. (To contradict my first sentence)

Ned · January 20, 2003, 18:04

Monkspider, let me ask you a question. Would scenario B be any more repugnant to you if the dictator was Stalin rather than Hitler?

As to scenario A: There are actually many Star Trek (original series) shows that promulgated a hypothetical civilization not unlike scenario A. Star Trek's typical hypothetical civilization was run by a well-meaning computer that took care of the needs of society but denied citizens any true freedom. Inevitably, Captain Kirk liberated the people by destroying the machine and then enjoined the people to begin living real lives.

I also believe that the premise of total equality as essentially denying true freedom was explored in Brave New World. It was also explored in the movie Matrix.

In all such circumstances, is quite clear that a society that is fully equal, fully peaceful and totally "happy" is a society that denies one the opportunity of exercising freewill. Such a life is slavery.

On the other, life in a dictatorship is also not free as one must live his life totally on edge. At any moment you can be denounced as a traitor. You may think you have a good life now; but tomorrow you may be thrown into a concentration camp simply because somebody in a position of power got mad at you.

Scenario A is unrealistic because it totally denies human nature. People like Liberty. They will resist, violently, being forced into a situation of slavery as envisioned by scenario A.

Scenario B, on the other hand, is quite real. We've had to many examples of dictatorships throughout history. They existed ancient times. They exist in modern times. They destroy lives, create injustices and menace peace.

Since scenario A. will never happen due to human nature. It is meaningless to discuss it as a realistic to alternative. But since scenario B does exist.

Dictatorships are to be fought and resisted by every free man on earth so long as he continues to breathe. This is why I find it hard to believe that the left continues to take the side of dictator's such a find in Iraq and North Korea against liberal democracies such as we find in the United States and the UK. Why is this?

Arrian · January 20, 2003, 18:15

People expect more of the liberal democracies, Ned, and get very pissed off when those democracies fail to reach expectations.

-Arrian

cavebear · January 20, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Cavebear:

That's still a skewed question. Have a look at the part I bolded. If everyone is happy, this is clearly the winner. Of course, everyone being happy, even under the most uptopian of systems, is a pipe dream.

-Arrian

I put it that way because many people do prefer material comforts over "happiness". I do understand your point, though. Perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate word than "happiness". It's not quite "freedom", and "liberty" is too vague. And I had to avoid words that described material enjoyment...

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 18:18

Oh yeah. As opposed to Bush bashers.

Ben Kenobi · January 20, 2003, 18:21

"Then there's also the religious right vote, which is also largely out of self-interest."

Please clarify Boris. Are you saying that they act in their individual interests or in the interest of their church, or for some other reason?

Arrian · January 20, 2003, 18:22

Cavebear,

Wouldn't "equality" be more appropriate than "happiness" for a communist society? Happiness is such a personal thing... Che would be happy under such a society, and Floyd would be miserable (assuming they really do want the things they advocate).

-Arrian

Traianvs · January 20, 2003, 18:37

Quote:

You make the assumption that I give a rat's ass what you think about me.
Let me clear up your misconception. I don't care at all.
I've had worse on my eyeball, and been called much worse by much better people than you.
What's clear is you don't have the foggiest notion of me, my personal situation, or my views.
If you did, you wouldn't make such dumbass observations.

No, as a matter of fact, I've read enough posts of yours to see that you do it all the time...

Just like now, saying you don't give a rats ass about me, yeah well, what do i care that you've been insulted by better ppl than me... (something anybody could say, just like I'm telling you you're not discussing with arguments, you're always dissing on ppl)

And just like everytime, you're trying to avoid what i'm trying to ask you... just because you're

for Martin Luther King doesn't mean you're moderate

Well, i'm not going to try to reason with you anymore then, no problem

cavebear · January 20, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Cavebear,

Wouldn't "equality" be more appropriate than "happiness" for a communist society? Happiness is such a personal thing... Che would be happy under such a society, and Floyd would be miserable (assuming they really do want the things they advocate).

-Arrian

"Equality" sounds like a good choice. I can imagine 2 people being equal in truly horrid conditions, but I'll take the positive meaning of equal in some reasonably acceptable life.

Thank you!

SlowwHand · January 20, 2003, 18:45

Trajanus, I'm still waiting on an example. Even a question.
Your flames don't matter much.
Go back to CivFanatics and do something useful, like getting Tribes up and running, finally.

Capt Dizle · January 20, 2003, 19:19

Only free market capitalism can generate the kind of wealth that has the potential to provide for all of the population but the poor have no bargining power so we end up with wealth being concentrated in 10% or less of the population in America.

Japher · January 20, 2003, 19:25

Quote:

Only free market capitalism can generate the kind of wealth that has the potential to provide for all of the population but the poor have no bargining power so we end up with wealth being concentrated in 10% or less of the population in America.

Good point. Yet what does wealth have to do with providing for all of the population.

What I would really like to see is some sort of study between countries with free market capitalism and those without comparing necessities and level or quality of life on average over the populace.

I remember reading somewhere that the quality of life in the US has increased drastically over the past 40 years when compared to other countries. Something that showed the average net worth of someone considered to be in "poverity" and what it was they owned, ate, etc.

Lancer · January 20, 2003, 19:31

Since A is going to end up a Stalinist or Maoist shithole and B isn't worth considering, I'll choose C.