|
Would Kerry do a better job countering terrorism (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Me and Occrider were discussing communism, then you began to comment on what I had said. You had no need to mention the word 'communism' as that is what I was already talking about, therefore, whether you said the word or not, that is what you were commenting on... |
Well, can you give me your number so the next time I want to figure out what I'm thinking I can call and ask you instead? I was commenting on your reference to "true equality" where I can only assume you meant a society where everyone has exactly the same as everyone else, i.e. nobody is "more equal" than anybody else. i.e. everyone is essentially a clone of eachother.
I took your comments on "true equality" and extrapolated data out to show the ramifications of what you were implying. I never said anything about communism. As Tim Curry would say, "Communism is nothing more than a red herring." |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Well, can you give me your number so the next time I want to figure out what I'm thinking I can call and ask you instead? I was commenting on your reference to "true equality" where I can only assume you meant a society where everyone has exactly the same as everyone else, i.e. nobody is "more equal" than anybody else. i.e. everyone is essentially a clone of eachother.
I took your comments on "true equality" and extrapolated data out to show the ramifications of what you were implying. I never said anything about communism. As Tim Curry would say, "Communism is nothing more than a red herring." |
Yes you did say something about communism!!!
Your still doing it now and you dont even realise it!
Whilest ever you are talking about my comments on "true equality" (which you have done in your last post) you are talking about communism. I gave my comments about "true equality" to describe communism, which is why I asked you (and would still like to know as you're still barking up that tree) why you think communism will turn everybody into an identicle replica? Or, if your still gonna get mad about it, why do you think "true equality" will turn everybody into an identicle replica? I'm quite sure its just an uninformed bit of propaganda aimed at you by your ruling class during the Cold War to get you on side (just like today where we are constantly told al-Qaida want to take over the world and kill us all!)
(By the way, I am not a communist, I have already stated a few times I dont think it will work, but at least I am able to argue against communism from an informed point of view, whereas you seem to be relying on, how can I put this? Hmmm...bull?) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yes you did say something about communism!!!
Your still doing it now and you dont even realise it!
Whilest ever you are talking about my comments on "true equality" (which you have done in your last post) you are talking about communism. I gave my comments about "true equality" to describe communism, which is why I asked you (and would still like to know as you're still barking up that tree) why you think communism will turn everybody into an identicle replica? Or, if your still gonna get mad about it, why do you think "true equality" will turn everybody into an identicle replica? I'm quite sure its just an uninformed bit of propaganda aimed at you by your ruling class during the Cold War to get you on side (just like today where we are constantly told al-Qaida want to take over the world and kill us all!)
(By the way, I am not a communist, I have already stated a few times I dont think it will work, but at least I am able to argue against communism from an informed point of view, whereas you seem to be relying on, how can I put this? Hmmm...bull?) |
Seriously dude, quit trying to put words in my mouth. You may have been speaking of communism, however I was referring to what you said about true equality. I envision a society of "True Equality" to mean one where everyone has the same as everything else--an idealistic vision--a utopia. It's not about communism. The definition of Utopia is:
1. often Utopian Of, relating to, describing or having the
characteristics of a Utopia: a Utopian island; Utopian novels.
2. Excellent or ideal but impracticable; visionary: a utopian scheme
for equalizing wealth.
Proposing impracticably ideal schemes.
Nope, no mention of communism in there and no mention of communism in any of my posts except to refute your claims that I'm speaking about communism. When you talk about "true equality", one can only assume that you mean equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. Whether or not you choose to put it in a communist framework is up to you, but don't accuse me of doing so.
Seems like it's you who's barking up the wrong tree. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| Alright then, "dude" (:D) do you think communists want "true equality" as I described and would you also accuse communists of being "utopian" aswell? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Alright then, "dude" (:D) do you think communists want "true equality" as I described and would you also accuse communists of being "utopian" aswell? |
I believe communism is a flawed system where in theory everyone is supposed to "own" an equal share of all assets, when in actuality there are a select few in high places who control and essentially own said assets. Where's the "true equality" in that? It's a false concept if nothing else. More than anything it limits the ability of a society to make forward progress due to the restrictions it puts on the whole.
Utopias aren't healthy, imho. Not to mention unrealistic. But in my mind, a utopia would be a society where everyone has exactly the same thing. Thus, everyone is "truly equal" economically, physically, emotionally, etc. It's an extreme extrapolation of "true equality", however I think it's important to look at the end-game of different philosophies to understand what they truly aim at accomplishing. I don't know how such a goal would ever be achieved--as I said, utopias are unhealthy and unrealistic.
We may have to have a philosophy thread, but I fear it could get complicated and lengthy. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Like I said, I dont think communism will work (probably for more or less the same reasons as you), but still, your building communism up to be something that it is not. Look at the theories, not the examples in history (you cannot say that a select few will rule in a communist society because it simply would not be a communist society if that were to happen, so the USSR was not communist in the slightest, altho it did have a centrally planned economy)
Still, I have no idea why you think everybody needs to be "emotionally and physically" the same under 'true equality'? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Still, I have no idea why you think everybody needs to be "emotionally and physically" the same under 'true equality'? |
blech, it was a quick, off the cuff comment. I figured if I only said "financial equality" that it wouldn't be enough to satiate you. You're right though, as those are pretty difficult variables to control and I honestly don't believe it's even realistic to consider them when envisioning "True equality".
Maybe a better question would be for me to ask you what you mean by "True Equality"? Certainly you mean equality on several levels?:cool: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
blech, it was a quick, off the cuff comment. I figured if I only said "financial equality" that it wouldn't be enough to satiate you. You're right though, as those are pretty difficult variables to control and I honestly don't believe it's even realistic to consider them when envisioning "True equality".
Maybe a better question would be for me to ask you what you mean by "True Equality"? Certainly you mean equality on several levels?:cool: |
Not really, I think financial equality, as you put it, would be sufficiant for 'true equality'. If everybody had the income to afford all oppertunities that Liberal Democracy gives us, then everybody would have an equal footing. As it stands, altho me and you have the right to do whatever we want to, we probably cant afford to do 90% of those things! (Have you seen the prices at Gatecrasher recently?!)
The other side of that of course is the availability of resources...altho it would be fair for gatecrasher to be free, it only holds 1,500 (in the Republic) so charging £20 (twenty ing quid!!!!!!!!!!!) would mean only 1,500 would want to go there in the first place!
Still, thats just a silly example. Education is better. If everybody had the same levels of funding, then universities would be filled with the brightest students in the country, not just the brightest of the ones who can afford it...(and that is what I mean by true equality, or financial equality as I think we could use both terms to describe what I mean)
:) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Not really, I think financial equality, as you put it, would be sufficiant for 'true equality'. If everybody had the income to afford all oppertunities that Liberal Democracy gives us, then everybody would have an equal footing. As it stands, altho me and you have the right to do whatever we want to, we probably cant afford to do 90% of those things! (Have you seen the prices at Gatecrasher recently?!)
The other side of that of course is the availability of resources...altho it would be fair for gatecrasher to be free, it only holds 1,500 (in the Republic) so charging £20 (twenty ing quid!!!!!!!!!!!) would mean only 1,500 would want to go there in the first place!
Still, thats just a silly example. Education is better. If everybody had the same levels of funding, then universities would be filled with the brightest students in the country, not just the brightest of the ones who can afford it...(and that is what I mean by true equality, or financial equality as I think we could use both terms to describe what I mean)
:) |
Would it not take the biggest of Big Brothers to create such an "equal" society? It seems to me that the more "equality" you would be trying to inject into society, the more of people's individual rights/freedoms you'd end up taking away as you try to equalize them. I can honestly say there's nobody I'd trust to try and oversee a society like that! It's one of those things that's great on paper, but is nothing more than an idealistic impossibility in actuality. Somebody once mentioned the short story Harrison Bergeron in this forum--and while I think it's a bit simplistic and mundane, it illustrates the scenario we're talking about quite well(if memory serves!).:) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Shakka, if I may add a word here.
It seems that, in general, you kinda equate progressive policies to that of a utopian world of equal and nondistinct status for everyone, whether it be financial, educational opportunity, living, etc. etc. This can somewhat fall under the guise of communism, creating a world of equal status regardless of employment, education, and so forth. Everyone living in the same environment like a Clockwork Orange (I miss that avatar of yours).
This simply isin't what progressives want, at least the vast majority of them. There is a middle ground.
What we do want is the increase the bar for those who do not have the same opportunities in life as those who have a means for a good education, good health, and good employment pay. Furthermore, I think it is the progressive thought that it is the obligation of society to make sure that everyone receives the same opportunities in life. And if this means a higher tax for those who have greater opportunity in order to help those who do not, then so be it. Because a society in general works more collectively and efficiently when there is a decrease in poverty and unemployment levels, or so the philosophy would go.
But this does not, and should not take away the work and finance of those who work hard and educate themselves well. Admittedly, it does take more out of their collective wallets, but in the long run we are talking in terms of those in the upper class buying a $400,000 house verses a $500,000 house. And compare that to those who are living in poverty and cannot make rent or put food on the table to feed their family - I think society as a whole benefits most by helping those in need, even if it takes a little chunk out of the priviledged. I personally won't loose too much sleep over it, all things considered.
Now how much of that poverty is self-induced verses how much is uncontrollable is also a factor, and I am specifically not referring to those self-induced idiots who live off of a welfare paycheck and contribute nothing to society and do nothing to help themselves out of their situation. Just to make things clear on where I stand with that factor.
I don't know if this philosophy is all that much different than that of conservatives. I think in the long run we both want the same thing - it's just how we get there is what's different. Perhaps you or someone else can explain the conservative philosophy a little better, rather than I attempt to pull something out of my ass and get it completely wrong, and then go from there. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Would it not take the biggest of Big Brothers to create such an "equal" society? It seems to me that the more "equality" you would be trying to inject into society, the more of people's individual rights/freedoms you'd end up taking away as you try to equalize them. I can honestly say there's nobody I'd trust to try and oversee a society like that! It's one of those things that's great on paper, but is nothing more than an idealistic impossibility in actuality. Somebody once mentioned the short story Harrison Bergeron in this forum--and while I think it's a bit simplistic and mundane, it illustrates the scenario we're talking about quite well(if memory serves!).:) |
And that, my friend, is why communism wont work! ;)
My own personal ideology (if you can call it that as its just a random mix of almost all ideologies) is that the society that is not only fair but is also stable and accountable, would be somewhere in between communism and capitalsim. I think all essential commodities (health, education, basic housing, social security, possibly some food and fuel costs) should be available to all for free (cos lets face it, its not like we cant afford to do it is it?) I also believe that all natural monopolies (transport, fuel, energy supplies, communications) should be nationalised as privatisation has only produced smaller regional monopolies which mean the theories of consumer soveignty do not apply (which means there is no pressure on companies to improve their services). The revenue collected from this will go towards paying for the free essential commodities I talked about. Also, there would be a high minimum wage. Everything else I would leave alone (altho I would probably increase accountability and representation in government) I have also just realised that the title to this thread is "Would Kerry do a better job countering terrorism" :conf: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I have also just realised that the title to this thread is "Would Kerry do a better job countering terrorism" :conf: |
LOL. At least we haven't delved into Israeli/Palestinian conflict yet!:D |
|
|
|
|
