Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-07-17 at 21:38:09
QUOTE
I am Theoretical_Human, by the way.
I sure hope not. And you didn't just make it a few days ago, you made it a while ago. So, you've had double accounts for a long time now. Either that, or you're impersonating him. And you're not speaking intelligently enough to be him anyway.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-07-17 at 21:42:15
Check up on the member's list. Theoretical_Human doesn't exist anymore. It's called the name change item. 
As for no intelligently enough, I've actually tried to be more subdued. Of course, I no longer take this as seriously. On topic: Communism is great... on paper. Those who are higher up want more pay, it's just their nature. Dictatorship can lead to great military conquest and economy boosts, but the people suffer. Democracy, in it's truest form, cannot go beyond maybe one thousand members. Anarchy is impossible, since then the strong take charge and form a dictatorship, and it starts over again.
As for no intelligently enough, I've actually tried to be more subdued. Of course, I no longer take this as seriously. On topic: Communism is great... on paper. Those who are higher up want more pay, it's just their nature. Dictatorship can lead to great military conquest and economy boosts, but the people suffer. Democracy, in it's truest form, cannot go beyond maybe one thousand members. Anarchy is impossible, since then the strong take charge and form a dictatorship, and it starts over again.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-17 at 21:44:11
You see, this is the classic mindset of leftists:
1. Their opponents are all biased. They, on the other hand, arrived at their beliefs purely through their open mindedness.
2. You are not allowed to say anything about them unless they have given you permission; for example, if a leftist makes a series of comments about how the rich have greedily exploited the poor and should be heavily taxed for it, you aren't allowed to say that that person despises the rich. To a liberal, it's just aweful that you would say that, because it wasn't a comment that was directly made by them. It doesn't matter whether it's eye-bleedingly clear; they must have directly said it for you to be able to call them out.
3. Eemotions are always evil, unless you are talking about social-welfare programs. In that case, it is cold-hearted and mean to cut back on welfare, despite any economic consequences.
1. Their opponents are all biased. They, on the other hand, arrived at their beliefs purely through their open mindedness.
2. You are not allowed to say anything about them unless they have given you permission; for example, if a leftist makes a series of comments about how the rich have greedily exploited the poor and should be heavily taxed for it, you aren't allowed to say that that person despises the rich. To a liberal, it's just aweful that you would say that, because it wasn't a comment that was directly made by them. It doesn't matter whether it's eye-bleedingly clear; they must have directly said it for you to be able to call them out.
3. Eemotions are always evil, unless you are talking about social-welfare programs. In that case, it is cold-hearted and mean to cut back on welfare, despite any economic consequences.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-07-17 at 21:46:41
And this has anything to do with Communism vs Democracy vs Totalitarian... how? Again, you're using a personal attack. We're not saying our enemies are all biased and we're not, we're stating that attacking us and not debating our arguments is a logical fallacy, which it IS.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-17 at 21:47:38
Theo, don't make me dig up our shoutbox conversation! 
I got you to say that if two Nazis were in a room with a Jew, it won't be wrong at all for the Nazis to torture the Jew because they are the majority.
ADDITION:
In response to the above post: the argument changed. I felt that I should respond to Cheeze's attacks better.
I got you to say that if two Nazis were in a room with a Jew, it won't be wrong at all for the Nazis to torture the Jew because they are the majority.
ADDITION:
In response to the above post: the argument changed. I felt that I should respond to Cheeze's attacks better.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-07-17 at 21:49:16
Wrong, I said that if there is no opposition to the Nazis, then they are not wrong, but since they are killing a Jew, then obviously the Jews don't view it as right, and since there is a spark of defiance, then ultimately it is inextinquishable, as long as the history survives to later generations. Once again, a personal attack and a irrelevant statement to demean your opponent. You fail to view opinion in an objective light, therefore, you do have a bias, the inability to see past your own morality.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-17 at 21:52:51
No, you did not say that. You said that what is right and wrong is decided by the majority. I'll quote you if you deny it again. I then asked you the question about the Nazis, and finally squeezed that answer out of you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-07-17 at 21:55:08
QUOTE
1. Their opponents are all biased. They, on the other hand, arrived at their beliefs purely through their open mindedness.
Not true. I admit I'm completely biased.
QUOTE
2. You are not allowed to say anything about them unless they have given you permission; for example, if a leftist makes a series of comments about how the rich have greedily exploited the poor and should be heavily taxed for it, you aren't allowed to say that that person despises the rich. To a liberal, it's just aweful that you would say that, because it wasn't a comment that was directly made by them. It doesn't matter whether it's eye-bleedingly clear; they must have directly said it for you to be able to call them out.
This is pretty true, to an extent. I personally don't see that as describing someone weho hates the rich. Instead I see it as someone who thinks that the rich could be less selfish and donate more money to a better cause than pampering themselves. You're calling them out based on what you assume they meant as opposed to what they directly stated.
And again, this has gone off-topic. Meh...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-07-17 at 21:56:38
Off topic (Don't worry, you won't see me post for another 2 weeks)
ihatett, there is only one change I request of you. Stop falling to the strawman fallacy (better if all of them, but this one is most important) so easily. Here is the full definition, taken from another site:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
I hope, by the time I return, you will stop making these. It's incredibly easy to make but you are almost abusing the privilege!
In a nutshell, don't misinterpret someone's post. Not only that, but you also should stop doing a continuation of the misinterpreted post which is another fallacy that I think you can't handle yet. Basically, if your first idea is wrong, then you try to connect it to another point that is totally irrelevant to my original arguement, you're commiting the fallacy.
If you think I am being close minded by telling you what to do, then my response will simply be, you are hopeless. There's basically no point trying to argue against you. All you can do is attack the person instead of the arguement. (Obviously, a fallacy).
Another fallacy you've made would be the Tu quoque fallacy. It means "you too". While you don't say it directly, you mean it.
ihatett, there is only one change I request of you. Stop falling to the strawman fallacy (better if all of them, but this one is most important) so easily. Here is the full definition, taken from another site:
QUOTE
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
I hope, by the time I return, you will stop making these. It's incredibly easy to make but you are almost abusing the privilege!
In a nutshell, don't misinterpret someone's post. Not only that, but you also should stop doing a continuation of the misinterpreted post which is another fallacy that I think you can't handle yet. Basically, if your first idea is wrong, then you try to connect it to another point that is totally irrelevant to my original arguement, you're commiting the fallacy.
If you think I am being close minded by telling you what to do, then my response will simply be, you are hopeless. There's basically no point trying to argue against you. All you can do is attack the person instead of the arguement. (Obviously, a fallacy).
Another fallacy you've made would be the Tu quoque fallacy. It means "you too". While you don't say it directly, you mean it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-07-17 at 21:58:26
Except that it's not what I truly think, you forget that you're using a text book example of Straw Man. What I said is irrelevant, I was angry because of your obnoxious spewing of the same meaningless garbage, but right and wrong are in the eyes of the beholder, it is not a definite. In the perspective of the Jew, it is a horrible crime. In the perspective of the Nazi, it is preserving their country. Bias is the inability to acknowledge the other side's opinion, which you fail to do. I don't agree with Nazism, I don't support it, I don't think they're right at all, but if I didn't exist, if no one but the Nazis existed, how are they wrong?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-07-17 at 22:33:04
Okay:
Democracy works when all people vote, majority wins, which over all, means most people become happy, bad for the minority, yes, but they realize that the majority thought the other option(s) were better. A government relies on teh fact that all the people agree to it. (Except any types of dictatorship, military rule, force governments in other words.)
If every human being in the US revolted against the white house, the government would fall, because everyone would stop working, crippling it.
(Example: If I fighter pilot revolts, the government can't use that fight, because he's revolting, and probably using it against them)
The reason democracy can't possibly work for the US is because we have states. Each state has its own agenda, and different needs.
Example:
I went on a vacation one year to Maine (Good place in summer). Well, in some place called Bar Harbor, I happened to have some lobster, which seems to be a big industry. So why would maine be concerned with mining laws, the extreme crimes of more populated places, and why would they need funding for vast herds of cattle?
Unlike places along the rocky mountains, and flat farmland such as Nebraska and kansas?
Anarchy is not an answer, ebcause if every human is for himself, life woudl stop, literaly. The electric company's workers don't work, so they don't get paid. The farmers, stop sending out food, and they just keep it themselves. Noone is forced to work. Money becomes worthless, because prices can't be regulated. Crime would soar, as only angered family members would be available for retribution. Noone would work, and noone would get paid. Anarchy is just asking for a military dictatorship.
Personaly, I think the state governments of teh US should handle more important matters, and that teh president only works to keep them together, and military/national affairs. (Diplomacy. federal taxes, military functions, ECT)
Every human is Biased. Warhammer40000 (A close friend of mine) Has a topic up about it. And I agree. But I can also see how biased I am, because I know him.
It's a great abilety to be able to see both sides of an argument. But, sometimes, that other argument isn't worth nearly as much thought as your own biased opinions.
Someone pull the Dictionary tems for liberal and extremist. I'm too lazy to do it...
But Ihatett, I strongly disagree with you:
You stated you were an archist, and that shows you believe in not having a government at all (History lessens/ Civilization 3 definition for Anarchy)
Up above I stated why I was against anarchy, but I do agree we are all biased, but you fail to realize that your own opinions are biased, and that in an anarchy, everyone's biased opinions would just mix like oil, water, dirt, and molasses. All of those items together = Big mess.
My last Point:
Imagine if Staredit.net was an anarchy.
I see swears posted everywhere, noone posting except flamers yelling insults and very crude language around. I see viruses being passed around in "maps" and generaly no fun going on. In fact, if this was an anarchy, but was about to abunder control. Most likely, you'd have been flamed much more than some cutting arguments.
Abraham Lincoln was a very smart man, he's the only president that ever made his opponents cabinent members so that he could keep his eyes on them, the lesson in debating?
Observe the other sides arguments, and try to read for any chinks in the idea. Then seeing a potential problem, in your mind think of teh most probable outcomes, and produce that point. But mudslinnging, just ruins your reputation, and makes you look stupid.
(That includes all the people who flamed anybody in this topic.)
END OF RANT
ADDITION:
WAY OFFTOPIC
WOOT
CAUSED A NEW PAGE!!!!!!!!
Democracy works when all people vote, majority wins, which over all, means most people become happy, bad for the minority, yes, but they realize that the majority thought the other option(s) were better. A government relies on teh fact that all the people agree to it. (Except any types of dictatorship, military rule, force governments in other words.)
If every human being in the US revolted against the white house, the government would fall, because everyone would stop working, crippling it.
(Example: If I fighter pilot revolts, the government can't use that fight, because he's revolting, and probably using it against them)
The reason democracy can't possibly work for the US is because we have states. Each state has its own agenda, and different needs.
Example:
I went on a vacation one year to Maine (Good place in summer). Well, in some place called Bar Harbor, I happened to have some lobster, which seems to be a big industry. So why would maine be concerned with mining laws, the extreme crimes of more populated places, and why would they need funding for vast herds of cattle?
Unlike places along the rocky mountains, and flat farmland such as Nebraska and kansas?
Anarchy is not an answer, ebcause if every human is for himself, life woudl stop, literaly. The electric company's workers don't work, so they don't get paid. The farmers, stop sending out food, and they just keep it themselves. Noone is forced to work. Money becomes worthless, because prices can't be regulated. Crime would soar, as only angered family members would be available for retribution. Noone would work, and noone would get paid. Anarchy is just asking for a military dictatorship.
Personaly, I think the state governments of teh US should handle more important matters, and that teh president only works to keep them together, and military/national affairs. (Diplomacy. federal taxes, military functions, ECT)
Every human is Biased. Warhammer40000 (A close friend of mine) Has a topic up about it. And I agree. But I can also see how biased I am, because I know him.
It's a great abilety to be able to see both sides of an argument. But, sometimes, that other argument isn't worth nearly as much thought as your own biased opinions.
Someone pull the Dictionary tems for liberal and extremist. I'm too lazy to do it...
But Ihatett, I strongly disagree with you:
You stated you were an archist, and that shows you believe in not having a government at all (History lessens/ Civilization 3 definition for Anarchy)
Up above I stated why I was against anarchy, but I do agree we are all biased, but you fail to realize that your own opinions are biased, and that in an anarchy, everyone's biased opinions would just mix like oil, water, dirt, and molasses. All of those items together = Big mess.
My last Point:
Imagine if Staredit.net was an anarchy.
I see swears posted everywhere, noone posting except flamers yelling insults and very crude language around. I see viruses being passed around in "maps" and generaly no fun going on. In fact, if this was an anarchy, but was about to abunder control. Most likely, you'd have been flamed much more than some cutting arguments.
Abraham Lincoln was a very smart man, he's the only president that ever made his opponents cabinent members so that he could keep his eyes on them, the lesson in debating?
Observe the other sides arguments, and try to read for any chinks in the idea. Then seeing a potential problem, in your mind think of teh most probable outcomes, and produce that point. But mudslinnging, just ruins your reputation, and makes you look stupid.
(That includes all the people who flamed anybody in this topic.)
END OF RANT
ADDITION:
WAY OFFTOPIC
WOOT
CAUSED A NEW PAGE!!!!!!!!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-07-18 at 01:05:35
Wilhelm: Again, you are proving my point. You don't think that it's wrong. I deserves that spot in my sig.
What decides right and wrong? Do you no longer think it is the majority?
Cheeze: I am not twisting what you say; you are simply being a typical leftist. The majority of you (at least in the United States) never admit to holding any controversial views (for example, when is the last time you heard a mainstream Democrat admit to being a liberal? They instead say that "you shouldn't label").
The fact that you are still hesitant state your position (all you do is repeat your buzzword) is further proof of this.
DevliN: Why stop at #2?
What decides right and wrong? Do you no longer think it is the majority?
Cheeze: I am not twisting what you say; you are simply being a typical leftist. The majority of you (at least in the United States) never admit to holding any controversial views (for example, when is the last time you heard a mainstream Democrat admit to being a liberal? They instead say that "you shouldn't label").
The fact that you are still hesitant state your position (all you do is repeat your buzzword) is further proof of this.
DevliN: Why stop at #2?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-07-18 at 03:35:03
Gorbachev didn't know what he was doing. He was the reason for the collapse of the U.S.S.R. DevliN.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-07-18 at 08:05:37
What I'm saying, Ihatett, is that a fact is something that everyone believes as true, thus nullifying your attempts to demean me and Cheeze. However, you are hardly debating here, instead throwing out attacks and seeing if they take the bait. It's a logical fallacy, just because Cheeze says you're wrong doesn't mean he's a leftist. Stop the personal attacks, because they're ineffective, and entirely unrelated from the topic.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-07-18 at 10:48:32
Anyone notice I haven't gotton a remark or comeback yet that says without flaming, mudslinging, or manipulating words, that proves my position on the topic is wrong?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-07-18 at 21:29:46
QUOTE(Ultimo @ Jul 18 2005, 12:35 AM)
Gorbachev didn't know what he was doing. He was the reason for the collapse of the U.S.S.R. DevliN.
[right][snapback]264750[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]264750[/snapback][/right]
And that's a bad thing? He opened the government up, and it failed. And as an American, I'm programmed to hate communist Russia (even though I find its history to be more fascinating that America's). Oh and I think communism is a great theory, like democracy. But both will never be successful as more than just theories.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-18 at 21:44:38
QUOTE(ihatett @ Jul 18 2005, 12:05 AM)
Wilhelm: Again, you are proving my point. You don't think that it's wrong. I deserves that spot in my sig.
What decides right and wrong? Do you no longer think it is the majority?
Cheeze: I am not twisting what you say; you are simply being a typical leftist. The majority of you (at least in the United States) never admit to holding any controversial views (for example, when is the last time you heard a mainstream Democrat admit to being a liberal? They instead say that "you shouldn't label").
The fact that you are still hesitant state your position (all you do is repeat your buzzword) is further proof of this.
DevliN: Why stop at #2?
[right][snapback]264673[/snapback][/right]
What decides right and wrong? Do you no longer think it is the majority?
Cheeze: I am not twisting what you say; you are simply being a typical leftist. The majority of you (at least in the United States) never admit to holding any controversial views (for example, when is the last time you heard a mainstream Democrat admit to being a liberal? They instead say that "you shouldn't label").
The fact that you are still hesitant state your position (all you do is repeat your buzzword) is further proof of this.
DevliN: Why stop at #2?
[right][snapback]264673[/snapback][/right]
Hate, is it me, or is it that no one really likes you here? Cause you've been acting a LOT like a condescending
. And you have too much of an ego to ever admit you're wrong on something. Cause God forbid, that you may be wrong on something.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Pineapple on 2005-07-18 at 21:50:12
QUOTE(Alpha(MC) @ Jul 18 2005, 07:44 PM)
Hate, is it me, or is it that no one really likes you here? Cause you've been acting a LOT like a condescending [right][snapback]265175[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]265175[/snapback][/right]Well, It seem's that you don't pay attention to the rules arround here, Evrey one has an oppinion, And evrey one has to respect that, Dont make worthless post's because you don't agree with there opinion's.
Sure, He may be wrong, But give it a break, Hes wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-18 at 21:55:31
QUOTE(Zero @ Jul 18 2005, 08:50 PM)
Well, It seem's that you don't pay attention to the rules arround here, Evrey one has an oppinion, And evrey one has to respect that, Dont make worthless post's because you don't agree with there opinion's.
Sure, He may be wrong, But give it a break, Hes wrong.
[right][snapback]265184[/snapback][/right]
Sure, He may be wrong, But give it a break, Hes wrong.
[right][snapback]265184[/snapback][/right]
Ya, every one here DOES have to respect that. But hate here, doesn't. So if you're gonna lecture me for talking like that, then you're gonna need to lecture hate a whole lot more.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wilhelm on 2005-07-19 at 09:29:06
Ihatett doesn't participate in debates. He simply attacks the other people in the argument, he has yet to really say anything relevant to the thread. We have to respect his opinion that we're inferior to him? What the hell?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2005-07-20 at 02:45:07
Yeah there's a major difference between hearing out the other person's arguement, and just downright belittling them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Infested-Jerk on 2005-07-20 at 16:38:08
Wait for his reply, I mean if you can win a debate without becoming a crude brute, then you've won.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-07-21 at 19:14:19
I think someone alrdy said this before, and if they did, I apologize for not reading 100%:
I find it kinda funny on how communism is listed, yet capitalism, and socialism isn't. I mean, they could've at LEAST been thrown in as well. They're only what, at least 10 times larger than communism?
Communism would be perfect if humans were perfect, but we're not perfect. So unless we're patriotic stoic robots, communism is not gonna work.
Capitalism is great and all, but companies are able to get so large and powerful, they can change laws into their favors via lobbyists. (I'm pretty sure almost everyone here already knows that)
Socialism, I only know the basics of. Got no opinion on it right now.
Democracy: A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and we got enough weak links already.
Totalitarian: (This has been said before for sure, I hope) If you find a great leader, then you're set. However, chances are, you're not gonna find a great leader.
I find it kinda funny on how communism is listed, yet capitalism, and socialism isn't. I mean, they could've at LEAST been thrown in as well. They're only what, at least 10 times larger than communism?
Communism would be perfect if humans were perfect, but we're not perfect. So unless we're patriotic stoic robots, communism is not gonna work.
Capitalism is great and all, but companies are able to get so large and powerful, they can change laws into their favors via lobbyists. (I'm pretty sure almost everyone here already knows that)
Socialism, I only know the basics of. Got no opinion on it right now.
Democracy: A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and we got enough weak links already.
Totalitarian: (This has been said before for sure, I hope) If you find a great leader, then you're set. However, chances are, you're not gonna find a great leader.