About Anti-Trump people turning violent

[Neon]

 

[Flatlander]

You shouldn't even discuss with them. Like I said: You should ask one simple question. If they cannot give you the answer, then the answer is "We don't know nothing about the stuff we're trying to discuss with You". And this is the moment when they either acknowledge their lack of proofs or they go full mental on moral-bullshit arguments. As soon as they try the second option, your job is to cut off the whole "discussion".
Discussion is about arguments and arguments are about actual data. Emotions or morality is not part of discussion. Those are parts of propaganda machinery.


Small correction: "in theory". You're mistaking theory with hypothesis. Evolution is theory. Car engine is theory. Structure of atom is theory. Lewis acid-base is theory. Nature of light is theory. Etc. Theory must work in reality, because theory is explanation of what and how something is occurring/happening/working and it is based on experiments and data that confirmed it.
This phrase "in theory works, but in reality it does not" is sad product of lack of education and language degeneration. The theory of car engine doesn't apply to broken one. You cannot use this theory to describe the faulty engine. If you really want to use THEORY To describe the fault engine, then You should use some kind of "theory of broken engine" that precisely describes it.

[/QUOTE]

The problem is, they are not "technically" wrong. If you believe no human should ever suffer in any way.

Let's put it this way:
Under Capitalism, there will be some stupid, useless people that are unable to get a job. (Yes, there are people too stupid and useless to even work at a fast food joint washing dishes, or lifting boxes and stocking shelves)
Then, there will be idiots who can get a job, but they make bad decisions, think of the Single Mother with 8 kids who doesn't make enough money to feed all of her kids because she works at Burger King.

People look at these situations and think. "Oh no, this is wrong, Capitalism does not help these people, therefor capitalism does not work."
When I look at these situations I think. "Oh no, these people are stupid and useless, or make bad decisions, and they are UNABLE TO HELP THEMSELVES SO THEY NEED SOMEONE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM."

It isn't the system that is broken, it is the people who aren't able to survive in the system.
If you are poor in a capitalistic society. It is YOUR fault.

But, even if I say this, that doesn't remove the fact that some stupid woman has 8 starving children, and people see this as "Unfair" and think the people making 20 million dollars a year because they aren't stupid and made good decisions with their life should share with the stupid woman.

In short arguments, Morality beats Rationality every time.
If you argue that people are starving, and the other person says "Yea, but it is her fault that she is starving." Then you are immediately seen as an evil bad guy. Which is why socialism is gaining traction lately. They basically pull the guilt card and call you a heartless evil bastard if you say Capitalism is the way to go.

It takes a long, thought-out discussion to show people why they are wrong. And why socialism isn't good, and Capitalism is a morally better alternative.

 

[e.e]

Well that's life. LIFE IS UNFAIR. The whole concept of survival of the fittest is unfair and it still applies today.

It is problematic however, to say the least, to just accept unfairness with the excuse or statement of forfeit "that's just how it is".
(Just FYI, this is not intended to be personal critique, I'm just using your statement here to make an important overall point that I believe you and others have missed).
What you and many like you on the Right (whether or not you are on the Right) seem to fail to understand is that the ENDGAME of "the survival of the fittest"-attitude, framework, ideology, philosophy, whatever you wanna call or categorize it as, ends in 1 ruler and $total_population-1 slaves.
And this ruler is not the most fit in terms of intelligence, creativity, achievements, etc (only in comparison to his ruthless competitors, but not overall), he's only "fit" in the same sense that predatory animals are "fit": in ruthlessness.
Ruthlessness works (and to a large degree is required to survive in nature) outside of the human domain because animals doesn't have the capacity to create the kind of tools we can, like nuclear weapons. A tiger is able to kill pretty much any animal he's in proximity with, but he's not able kill whole species of animals or blow the Earth up. WE ARE.

Further, ruthlessness inevitably leads to destruction both of others and self on any finite space, because absolute (perfect) ruthlessness requires access to infinite resources (to consume infinite resources, which any perfectly ruthless mind seeks to do, you need an infinite amount of resources first), which doesn't exist in the real world.
There also are no long-term gains ever by ruthlessness, only temporary gains.
If you think you disagree, give me a single example where ruthlessness yields a greater long-term gain than the alternative does.
Ruthlessness/selfishness is just a temporary gain, much like heroin, but ends in complete destruction of both self and the addict's environment.

 

[GOD Wille]

i prefer communism

 

[Arashel]

The problem is, they are not "technically" wrong. If you believe no human should ever suffer in any way.

They are technically wrong, because stuff like pain, suffering or fear are biological process of informing animal that current situation is somehow "wrong" and it will have negative effect on the animal.
Talking about world without suffering is typical slogan of uneducated humanist who cannot comprehend biology and nature of homo sapiens. This is exactly the same thing Soviet wanted to achieve with their idea of homo sovieticus. People like that are too stupid to realize that biology has superiority over them and they cannot change people in any possible way.

 

[e.e]

They are technically wrong, because stuff like pain, suffering or fear are biological process of informing animal that current situation is somehow "wrong" and it will have negative effect on the animal.
Talking about world without suffering is typical slogan of uneducated humanist who cannot comprehend biology and nature of homo sapiens. This is exactly the same thing Soviet wanted to achieve with their idea of homo sovieticus. People like that are too stupid to realize that biology has superiority over them and they cannot change people in any possible way.

I was wrong; you can be funny!

 

[GhostX]

Small correction: "in theory". You're mistaking theory with hypothesis. Evolution is theory. Car engine is theory. Structure of atom is theory. Lewis acid-base is theory. Nature of light is theory. Etc. Theory must work in reality, because theory is explanation of what and how something is occurring/happening/working and it is based on experiments and data that confirmed it.

[/QUOTE]

A theorem is a result that can be proven to be true from a set of axioms. The term is used especially in mathematics where the axioms are those of mathematical logic and the systems in question. A theory is a set of ideas used to explain why something is true, or a set of rules on which a subject is based on

It was just a poor use of saying it doesn't work. When I say it doesn't work in reality, I don't mean it disproves it but that human nature doesn't accept it and leads to corruption which in turn causes it to not work. On paper communism works. When implemented, chaos occurs.

 

[Arashel]

I was wrong; you can be funny!

Dude. I kinda got used to be mocked by anti-vaccine, anti-GMO or amygdalin/witamin C-will-save-you-from-cancer uneducated idiots, so really your post was unnecessary. You're just yet another ignorant dude who came here to yell his slogans, say that everyone is wrong and never bother to prove your points about anything you've said...

 

[e.e]

Dude. I kinda got used to be mocked by anti-vaccine, anti-GMO or amygdalin/witamin C-will-save-you-from-cancer uneducated idiots, so really your post was unnecessary. You're just yet another ignorant dude who came here to yell his slogans, say that everyone is wrong and never bother to prove your points about anything you've said...

 

[e.e]

So @Flatlander
Would you be interested in having a more open/general conversation with me here in public?
I wouldn't mind arguing some specifics with you as well, but I don't think it's getting us anywhere (I think we've already tried this without much success, yes?).
I ask because I'm still not satisfied here with the results personally.
(I have to mock Arashel because he is acting nothing more or less but a complete clown, but you're not)

To be honest the question I would like to be answered most by you is what your intentions is here or what you wish to accomplish with this thread or with arguing with/talking to left-leaning people.
This is a sincere question, not an interrogative one.
What would the optimal result of this thread look like to you?

 

[Flatlander]

Eh, I just like discussion.
Sometimes I just feel like I want to debate and discuss with other random people.

How else are you supposed to test your ideas.

 

[Arashel]

(I have to mock Arashel because he is acting nothing more or less but a complete clown, but you're not)

Of course I'm clown to You.
I did dare to ask you for specifics in regards to content of your first posts and refused to start offtopic discussion about different subjects. This is the most dangerous thing for pathetic or crazy liars like You. Having to explain your points and proving that your statements about me being wrong are based on anything in particular.

 

[e.e]

Eh, I just like discussion.
Sometimes I just feel like I want to debate and discuss with other random people.

Ok. As do I, but it seems to me that we accomplished nothing though.
Which leads me to the next part of your post

How else are you supposed to test your ideas.

That's the problem, we didn't get down to discussing any ideas.
I shared some of mine [1][2], but none of you dared to address any of it, not even a sentence, word, syllable or character of it...
Instead some just got quiet, others started ranting about imaginary opponents (antifa this, irrational morality that), and prior to me sharing ideas we were all just engaging in cheap talking points/arguing about what the other side said...
So honestly my question is: is that all you can do and all you're interested in? Are you just another Arashel (dishonest clown troll) in the closet? Or do you dare to actually talk about something, whether to learn or win or whatever, but fairly and seriously?

 

[Flatlander]

Ok. As do I, but it seems to me that we accomplished nothing though.
Which leads me to the next part of your post

That's the problem, we didn't get down to discussing any ideas.
I shared some of mine [1][2], but none of you dared to address any of it, not even a sentence, word, syllable or character of it...
Instead some just got quiet, others started ranting about imaginary opponents (antifa this, irrational morality that), and prior to me sharing ideas we were all just engaging in cheap talking points/arguing about what the other side said...
So honestly my question is: is that all you can do and all you're interested in? Are you just another Arashel (dishonest clown troll) in the closet? Or do you dare to actually talk about something, whether to learn or win or whatever, but fairly and seriously?

Well, saying no one dared to address any of your points is a bit much.

But I will gladly respond to all of your points (I feel I addressed some of them at least, but I will be more direct). - These are my thoughts on your points.
First, in response on your thoughts on Capitalism.

1. First, in response to "Criminals/Murderers being worth A LOT" isn't really in the world of capitalism. That is simply the world of humans (In any system, breaking the rules can give you benefits). Killing people or being a Criminal isn't really part of what I think of when I think of any Economic System, that is more just part of being human. Or actually just part of being alive (animals also kill and steal from each other)

I would like to put forth my reasoning for liking Capitalism as simply as I can.
I would define Socialism as follows:

• Community owns everything (no single individual owns or has rights to something)
• Community decides and regulates how resources, products, and services are sold and distributed.

I would define Capitalism as:

• Individuals own the things they produce.
• Individuals decide on how the resources, products, and services they provide are sold and distributed.

I prefer Capitalism because it gives more freedom to the Individual. (I can go into great detail on the benefits of this)


As for the "Chinese Factories".
If people are being forced to work at the factories against their will, then it is wrong.
If people AGREE to work at the factory of their own free will, then I see nothing wrong.

I actually am against minimum wage in any country. Your wages should be an agreement between the employee and employer.

As for your example on Gold.
First of all, Gold does have many uses, especially in technology. And also, Fashion is an industry that provides happiness to people. Not everything has to be food, shelter, and medicine. Entertainment can be a product that provides something to society as well. So if you mine out a mountain full of gold, and sell this gold to willing customers for money, and use that money to fund research for cancer. Is that still a terrible useless thing? Money is simply trading goods. It is a invisible mediator.

Instead of trading 3 chickens for 1 goat, you sell 3 chickens for money, and use that money to buy a goat. Because maybe the person selling the goat doesn't want 3 chickens, he wants bread. But the guy selling bread doesn't want 3 chickens either, he wants Spices. So you have to trade 3 Chickens for Spices, so that you can trade the spices for Bread so that you can trade the bread for a goat. That is a ridiculous waste of time and effort, Tada, money is born to simplify the process.

Every time I state someone is making money, you immediately assume they are a criminal, or you compare them to a criminal. It is as if you believe EVERY PERSON who has made a lot of money, must be evil, or must have done it in a criminal way by abusing others.
The person/people who became a millionaire because he sold "pet rocks" is not evil BECAUSE he sold people "Pet Rocks"
The person/people who created post-it notes is not evil because he invented and sold Post-It Notes
Even the people who trade stocks aren't evil BECAUSE they trade stocks.

Money does not make people evil. People are simply evil, do criminal things.
The Seven Deadly Sins of humanity existed before money. Even the sin known as Greed existed before "money".

Do you feel the above addresses your statements? If not, why not?
I feel I read and responded to most everything of what you said (except I didn't watch the video and respond to it)

**EDIT**
Also, I never ranted about Imagionary opponents. All the stated things are either groups people are a part of (Antifa) and beliefs people actually have.

 

[e.e]

Well, saying no one dared to address any of your points is a bit much.

I didn't say that, I said nobody addressed any of the posts I made that contained large ideas in contrast to mere thoughts, since you brought up the topic of ideas.
That's just a fact (did anyone respond to these posts or not?), which is not "a bit much" unless facts is a bit much for you.

But I will gladly respond to all of your points (I feel I addressed some of them at least, but I will be more direct). - These are my thoughts on your points.
First, in response on your thoughts on Capitalism.

Now you're conflating thoughts with ideas. Thoughts are specific, ideas are holistic. I've shared many thoughts, but only a few ideas, and my thoughts on Capitalism, as you just said, are in fact only thoughts, not related too strongly with any of my ideas, actually.
The ideas I was referring to started in that first post you're addressing at "Either way, we haven't fully addressed[...]", and the second post I linked to contain only ideas.
And taking a quick look at everything you're addressing in this post, you're in fact still not responding to a single one of my ideas which I linked to, you're just re-addressing all the things I've said (thoughts) in response to you guys' poor ideas (sorry to say).
Except for trying to argue that gold has some practical value, completely missing the point I was making about the arbitrary value of money/profit.
Green toilet paper aka money also has practical value; you can wipe your ass with it..

If you'd like me to go for another round responding to your ideas in response to my thoughts on your ideas, I might be willing if you'll first address this point about ideas vs thoughts, particulars vs generals.
Particulars are only useful in the context of generals. You can't meaningfully talk about objects in motion on earth without considering the gravity on Earth for example.
And you can't meaningfully talk about economic value without first considering what money even is and what its value is...

Do you feel the above addresses your statements? If not, why not?

No. Explained above.

I feel I read and responded to most everything of what you said (except I didn't watch the video and respond to it)

You certainly did not.
I explained things like the rational behind morality/ethics, the ultimate problems with authoritarianism and right-wing ideology, I questioned what the value of money is; money being something you've used to try to argue your points over and over again as if money was an end in itself, and I've explained that in fact the value of money is arbitrary.
You've not addressed any of that in the slightest, and those are the important points -- addressing the core issue of what we're talking about, in sharp contrast of you guys rambling about completely unrelated things like antifa.
Tell me, what does antifa have to do with this conversation at all?

**EDIT**
Also, I never ranted about Imagionary opponents. All the stated things are either groups people are a part of (Antifa) and beliefs people actually have.

Yes, but no one from antifa are here, as far as I and you know anyway (if you know someone from antifa is here please share), yet you and the stormtrooper have talked as if they are.
Talking about "how you should address/not talk to antifa" here is as unrelated as if I started talking to OpenTibiaServer on here saying "we shouldn't talk to those nazis, they're all manipulative, dishonest sons of bitches trying to get angry, uneducated white men with a below-average IQ on their side".
How would that statement be related to our political discussion here when none of us/you have admitted or claimed to be or showed any signs of being nazis?
Seems to me, despite all your efforts and attention directed at talking about the left as being irrational, that you have quite the irrational streak yourself.

 

[Arashel]

Yes, but no one from antifa are here, as far as I and you know anyway (if you know someone from antifa is here please share), yet you and the stormtrooper have talked as if they are.

You're pathetic and lying sack of shit I never "classified" you into any specific political category and I don't count being idiot as political category xD Is there any reason to lie? Like seriously. Everyone here have access to the whole topic and they can read all posts. You're seriously counting on people reading few of the last posts and believing you, just because you said something? Nice tactics. But this forum is dead and it is very ineffective.

 

[e.e]

You're pathetic and lying sack of shit I never "classified" you into any specific political category and I don't count being idiot as political category xD Is there any reason to lie? Like seriously. Everyone here have access to the whole topic and they can read all posts. You're seriously counting on people reading few of the last posts and believing you, just because you said something? Nice tactics. But this forum is dead and it is very ineffective.

Knock knock, who's there?

 

[Arashel]

Dude You're not among your friends for this childish tactics of mocking crowd vs one person to work. You're one ignorant fool who laughs alone and publishes some random photos of mirrors. You're just making me laugh at this point.
Instead of laughing, you could take your balls out of the fridge and find the courage to prove your points from post: About Anti-Trump people turning violent instead of just acting like omnipotent beings and leave it with "nope. you're wrong" <3

 

[Flatlander]

I didn't say that, I said nobody addressed any of the posts I made that contained large ideas in contrast to mere thoughts, since you brought up the topic of ideas.
That's just a fact (did anyone respond to these posts or not?), which is not "a bit much" unless facts is a bit much for you.


Now you're conflating thoughts with ideas. Thoughts are specific, ideas are holistic. I've shared many thoughts, but only a few ideas, and my thoughts on Capitalism, as you just said, are in fact only thoughts, not related too strongly with any of my ideas, actually.
The ideas I was referring to started in that first post you're addressing at "Either way, we haven't fully addressed[...]", and the second post I linked to contain only ideas.
And taking a quick look at everything you're addressing in this post, you're in fact still not responding to a single one of my ideas which I linked to, you're just re-addressing all the things I've said (thoughts) in response to you guys' poor ideas (sorry to say).
Except for trying to argue that gold has some practical value, completely missing the point I was making about the arbitrary value of money/profit.
Green toilet paper aka money also has practical value; you can wipe your ass with it..

If you'd like me to go for another round responding to your ideas in response to my thoughts on your ideas, I might be willing if you'll first address this point about ideas vs thoughts, particulars vs generals.
Particulars are only useful in the context of generals. You can't meaningfully talk about objects in motion on earth without considering the gravity on Earth for example.
And you can't meaningfully talk about economic value without first considering what money even is and what its value is...


No. Explained above.

You certainly did not.
I explained things like the rational behind morality/ethics, the ultimate problems with authoritarianism and right-wing ideology, I questioned what the value of money is; money being something you've used to try to argue your points over and over again as if money was an end in itself, and I've explained that in fact the value of money is arbitrary.
You've not addressed any of that in the slightest, and those are the important points -- addressing the core issue of what we're talking about, in sharp contrast of you guys rambling about completely unrelated things like antifa.
Tell me, what does antifa have to do with this conversation at all?


Yes, but no one from antifa are here, as far as I and you know anyway (if you know someone from antifa is here please share), yet you and the stormtrooper have talked as if they are.
Talking about "how you should address/not talk to antifa" here is as unrelated as if I started talking to OpenTibiaServer on here saying "we shouldn't talk to those nazis, they're all manipulative, dishonest sons of bitches trying to get angry, uneducated white men with a below-average IQ on their side".
How would that statement be related to our political discussion here when none of us/you have admitted or claimed to be or showed any signs of being nazis?
Seems to me, despite all your efforts and attention directed at talking about the left as being irrational, that you have quite the irrational streak yourself.

Ok, you see this is a pretty big problem.
I feel you are purposely being unfair and ridiculous in an attempt to "win" an argument. I am not trying to "win" an argument, I am simply expressing my thoughts on what you said, and express my point of view.

You then say that my thoughts and opinions had nothing to do with anything you said, which to me is simply factually untrue.

Let's go into great detail on this to show you what I see from my perspective:

So first I responded to this. I stated my reason for liking capitalism, and you stated that the reason I am wrong is because criminals can be successful by ignoring ethics and social rules.
My response was simply that people breaking the rules of a system do not define a system.

I then responded to this by expressing what I think the main difference between Socialism and Capitalism is. In more detail (and in response to the above) I would say this:
--Switching jobs isn't the issue. It is keeping the same job in the same industry and doing the same amount of work, but making more money. If I feel I am worth more, and I can find a business owner that agrees and is willing to pay me more, then that should be allowed. This is not allowed in Socialism because there is no such thing as a business owner.

The entire definition of Socialism is that the community/government owns everything. (No individual owns anything). That is the DEFINITION of socialism. Most "socialist" societies today use capitalism to run most of the economy.
It seems you would like to pretend everything bad about Socialism is actually Communism, and that Socialism is some hypothetical undefinable super-society that would produce rainbows, unicorns, and free candy for everyone.

So let me steal some explanations from google on the difference between Socialism and Communism, and why capitalism works better for the individual.

In a communist society, the working class owns everything, and everyone works toward the same communal goal. There are no wealthy or poor people -- all are equal, and the community distributes what it produces based only on need. Nothing is obtained by working more than what is required.

Like communism, socialism’s main focus is on equality. But workers earn wages they can spend as they choose, while the government, not citizens, owns and operates the means for production. Workers receive what they need to produce and survive, but there’s no incentive to achieve more, leaving little motivation.

Both are the opposite of capitalism, where limitations don’t exist and reward comes to those who go beyond the minimum. In capitalist societies, owners are allowed to keep the excess production they earn. And competition occurs naturally, which fosters advancement. Capitalism tends to create a sharp divide between the wealthiest citizens and the poorest, however, with the wealthiest owning the majority of the nation's resources.

Now you may see that last line, where it says the wealthiest owning the majority of the nation's resources, and think "See! That is why capitalism is evil and bad!".
But you would be wrong, that is why Capitalism is good and moral.

More often than not, the people who make the most money in a Capitalistic society, are providing the most to the community.
And the reason people in a Capitalistic society are so productive, is because they have the incentive to produce more. The more they Produce, the more they receive.


------------------------------------------------------
This is already pretty long, so I will leave it there and would like to hear your response.
Do you think my definition of Socialism is fair and/or correct?
Do you still think nothing I said about addresses your points?

 

[e.e]

Ok, you see this is a pretty big problem.
I feel you are purposely being unfair and ridiculous in an attempt to "win" an argument. I am not trying to "win" an argument, I am simply expressing my thoughts on what you said, and express my point of view.

You are absolutely trying to win an argument... You just said this in other words yourself

Eh, I just like discussion.
Sometimes I just feel like I want to debate and discuss with other random people.

This was in response to me asking if you want to have a normal conversation with me, and you basically said "no, I wanna keep arguing".
But you're not trying to win, you say?

You then say that my thoughts and opinions had nothing to do with anything you said, which to me is simply factually untrue.

I just explained this,

I didn't say that, I said nobody addressed any of the posts I made that contained large ideas in contrast to mere thoughts, since you brought up the topic of ideas.
That's just a fact (did anyone respond to these posts or not?), which is not "a bit much" unless facts is a bit much for you.

(If anyone doesn't understand the difference between ideas and thoughts, read this).
But if you're just gonna pretend to be or actually be blind and useless then this "conversation" has to end.
I'm not interested in quoting shit over and over again because you're unable to read.
Good luck have fun wasting someone else's time (oh wouldn't it be sad if you actually considered that an accomplishment

...).