[J m HofMarN]

Quote

How to solve unemployment? Well, the only reasonable thing you can do is remove the minimum wage, ban women from working unskilled jobs, depopulate urban areas and run programs teaching people how to grow their own fruits or vegetables in their backyards or on their balconies.

Thats not how to solve unemployment underemployment is factored in to most sensible unemployment rates, and without a minimum wage, everyone would be underemployed. Also, why ban only women? I mean, jews and blacks and mexicans are right there just waiting to be used as scapegoats. I also dont see how planting tomatoes would solve unemployment.

Quote

Moron, I'm against taxation. I don't know where you got flat taxes. But yeah, the government can invest into private property, buy bonds, trade with other governments, rent out land and do a whole bunch of other things that not only produce revenue but don't require you waiting a year for it. It doesn't need taxes. It only uses taxes to increase it's stranglehold on their subjects.

I see. Well, that could work, so long as the government subscribed to your insane model and existed as a barely integral anarcho-capatilist group of city states whberein all public services were provided by spontaneously generated groups of likeminded people or corporations. And please, dont challenge my knowledge of the history on these forums. Your "a ten percent flat tax rate would solve everything that guns wont" defense is almost as legendary as homocest or on the rag training.

Quote

Except it's not two militias. It's a whole bunch of militias. Then there's those who've left or were never part of the militias but are armed. There'd be a balance of power with no militia or group becoming the "new government."

Power abhors a balance almost as much as it does a vacuum. If youre looking at short term, yes this works, but long term, the smaller militia groups would join up to form larger ones and gain power and influence.

Quote

Corporations, unions and other cartels. Also government, but that's a given. There can't be a "free flow of capital" if organizations are constantly trying to monopolize said capital, right?

Ok, so there will be absolutely no organizations except the militias? What? Who is going to enforce that? Oh, thats right, the militias. So the militias will be the government? Or the not government?

Quote

Collective bargaining? You mean some selfish pricks deciding how much I earn and how long I work regardless of how hard I work or how long I wish to work? Yeah, sounds great. Thanks Marx for giving stupid and corrupt people ideas. Anyway, you don't need unions because there's such a thing called wage inflation. What you need to do is stop wage controls and try to limit the number of unemployed people (the best amount being none) by reducing tax on businesses.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. In fact thats the same explanation Marx put forth for it. However did you know? Why would you rather the bosses of your company decide your working hours than fellow workers? In what way could that possibly make sense ever? My head asplode.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Thats not how to solve unemployment underemployment is factored in to most sensible unemployment rates, and without a minimum wage, everyone would be underemployed. Also, why ban only women? I mean, jews and blacks and mexicans are right there just waiting to be used as scapegoats. I also dont see how planting tomatoes would solve unemployment.

Don't be silly, Blacks don't work. Unemployment and "underemployment" is a purely urban and, to a much lesser degree, a suburban phenomena. The reason for banning unskilled women is because, let's face it, women are made to breed. Everybody growing vegetables and fruits would stem hunger. Minimum wages causes businesses to have less money which they can use to hire more workers.

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

I see. Well, that could work, so long as the government subscribed to your insane model and existed as a barely integral anarcho-capatilist group of city states whberein all public services were provided by spontaneously generated groups of likeminded people or corporations. And please, dont challenge my knowledge of the history on these forums. Your "a ten percent flat tax rate would solve everything that guns wont" defense is almost as legendary as homocest or on the rag training.

What? You've lost me. My point was that taxes have no purpose other than to subjugate people. In your culture's case, it started around the time "William the Conqueror" used taxes to subjugate rebellious villages, rather than slaughter them outright like his territorial predecessors did. Genius, yes. But he set an unfortunate trend.

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Power abhors a balance almost as much as it does a vacuum. If youre looking at short term, yes this works, but long term, the smaller militia groups would join up to form larger ones and gain power and influence.

Then you'd have a junta of rival groups ergo you'd have what you had in the beginning: Nobody gaining absolute power. Not to mention that these groups wouldn't have to content with groups not a part of their junta and with individuals not a part of any groups.

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Ok, so there will be absolutely no organizations except the militias? What? Who is going to enforce that? Oh, thats right, the militias. So the militias will be the government? Or the not government?

They'll be militias. A group of people who've joined to oppose something. A militia only exists as long as there is something to fight against. A militia is really just a coalition of armed individuals.

J m HofMarN, on 05 April 2010 - 01:25 PM, said:

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. In fact thats the same explanation Marx put forth for it. However did you know? Why would you rather the bosses of your company decide your working hours than fellow workers? In what way could that possibly make sense ever? My head asplode.

I'd rather I decide how long I work.

[J m HofMarN]

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. There is nothing in it that would even merit a reply. A more productive tactic would be to stand on a street corner with a sign that says "negroes stole my brain". you can add in something about assault rifles if you like.

Quote

What? You've lost me. My point was that taxes have no purpose other than to subjugate people. In your culture's case, it started around the time "William the Conqueror" used taxes to subjugate rebellious villages, rather than slaughter them outright like his territorial predecessors did. Genius, yes. But he set an unfortunate trend.

I would very much like to subscribe to your batshit insane libertarian-anarchism. That way I'll never feel the need to pay for anything. Fuck you, McDonalds! You only make me pay for my food to subjugate me! three dollars for a happy meal? HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!?

Quote

Then you'd have a junta of rival groups ergo you'd have what you had in the beginning: Nobody gaining absolute power. Not to mention that these groups wouldn't have to content with groups not a part of their junta and with individuals not a part of any groups.

In one case you claim that the stronger party always deserves to be the victor. In the other one, you claim that, for some reason, once everyone has guns, balance will reign supreme. This does not follow. Unbalance is a natural state. For instance, a forrest is overgrown, thus an overbalance of undergrowth. a fire comes in and creates another inbalance. Then, on the ashes, plants feed from that material and grow anew, and eventually form a new over abundance of undergrowth, etc etc. So, a natural balance could be said to be a cyclical matter. You're not going to achieve a state of permanent and perfect balance by getting rid of the government and giving out M16s. Also, why would it be a problem for a military junta to contend with smaller groups or individuals?

Quote

They'll be militias. A group of people who've joined to oppose something. A militia only exists as long as there is something to fight against. A militia is really just a coalition of armed individuals.

No, thats not what a militia is. First of all, there are plenty of current militias that exist without fighting against anything specific. Its more a group of people with common ideas who are ready to fight for those ideas if necessary, but mostly just enjoy pretending to be airborn rangers. Also, a militia would usually need a leader, and would therefore not be just a random impromptu and uncooordinated group.

Quote

I'd rather I decide how long I work.

Ok, you go into your boss' office, and he says you need to work 60 hours a week with no overtime. You say you want to work five hours a week. He throws you through a window and hires another guy to work 60 hours a week with no overtime.

Explain why this situation is preferable to all the workers under him getting together and deciding that, no, they will not be working a 60 hour week with no overtime, and thus forcing him to deal justly with his employees and not defenestrate people.

Please for the love of fuck, be more creative than "I will have an assault rifle"

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

Your first paragraph is completely wrong. There is nothing in it that would even merit a reply. A more productive tactic would be to stand on a street corner with a sign that says "negroes stole my brain". you can add in something about assault rifles if you like.

My, you're a little bitch, aren't you?

Deucaon, on 05 April 2010 - 03:54 PM, said:

Don't be silly, Blacks don't work. Unemployment and "underemployment" is a purely urban and, to a much lesser degree, a suburban phenomena. The reason for banning unskilled women is because, let's face it, women are made to breed. Everybody growing vegetables and fruits would stem hunger. Minimum wages causes businesses to have less money which they can use to hire more workers.

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

I would very much like to subscribe to your batshit insane libertarian-anarchism. That way I'll never feel the need to pay for anything. Fuck you, McDonalds! You only make me pay for my food to subjugate me! three dollars for a happy meal? HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM!?

Except going to a restaurant is voluntary. How's compulsory surrender of your possessions anything but oppression? You say that because I get a return of 10 cents for every dollar I give that makes it justified even though I pointed out that governments don't need taxes to gain revenue.

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

In one case you claim that the stronger party always deserves to be the victor. In the other one, you claim that, for some reason, once everyone has guns, balance will reign supreme. This does not follow. Unbalance is a natural state. For instance, a forrest is overgrown, thus an overbalance of undergrowth. a fire comes in and creates another inbalance. Then, on the ashes, plants feed from that material and grow anew, and eventually form a new over abundance of undergrowth, etc etc. So, a natural balance could be said to be a cyclical matter. You're not going to achieve a state of permanent and perfect balance by getting rid of the government and giving out M16s. Also, why would it be a problem for a military junta to contend with smaller groups or individuals?

Because it'd be, by design, much smaller than the general population. Unless a large minority of the population was in the government in which case it's not really a government.

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

No, thats not what a militia is. First of all, there are plenty of current militias that exist without fighting against anything specific. Its more a group of people with common ideas who are ready to fight for those ideas if necessary, but mostly just enjoy pretending to be airborn rangers. Also, a militia would usually need a leader, and would therefore not be just a random impromptu and uncooordinated group.

Ad hoc and impromptu doesn't mean uncoordinated. I doubt the people who joined a militia to defend their land and family would then help some madman become dictator, especially after fighting against a madman who would be dictator.

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

Ok, you go into your boss' office, and he says you need to work 60 hours a week with no overtime. You say you want to work five hours a week. He throws you through a window and hires another guy to work 60 hours a week with no overtime.
Explain why this situation is preferable to all the workers under him getting together and deciding that, no, they will not be working a 60 hour week with no overtime, and thus forcing him to deal justly with his employees and not defenestrate people.
Please for the love of fuck, be more creative than "I will have an assault rifle"

I quit and find another job? Preferably one without a homicidal boss.

[Spoon Poetic]

tl;dr - but since it's y'all I'm gonna butt in for a brief second and be all like, dudes don't namecall cuz it's against the rules and I can't give an exception to y'all because then other people may come in once in a blue moon and try to name call and I'll be all like stop it and then they'll be all like but you let Jm and Cobnuts do it and yeah.

So please no direct insults. Insult the arguments all you like though.

Okay; continue.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

My, you're a little bitch, aren't you?

From that one post that I was "bitch"ing about alone you made it abundantly clear that, in addition to everything else wrong with you, you're a racist, a sexist, and a social darwinist. Little bitch seems a more preferable lable by far than those.

Quote

Except going to a restaurant is voluntary. How's compulsory surrender of your possessions anything but oppression? You say that because I get a return of 10 cents for every dollar I give that makes it justified even though I pointed out that governments don't need taxes to gain revenue.

One has to pay for food, therefore safeway is a tyrant KILL THE GROCERY CLERKS! VIVA LA REVOLOION! Also, I paid about a quarter of my income to various branches of the US government this year. I do not have a problem with that since it goes to maintain roads I use, services I utlize, etc. And yes, governments could gain revenue from things besides taxes. But that revenue would be insufficient to continue the programs I enjoy and keep patching the holes in my roads, plow the snow, educate the youth, and so forth and so on. I like the compulsory surrender oppression system a lot more than your idea of "anarchy plus violence plus capitalism = FUN"

Quote

Because it'd be, by design, much smaller than the general population. Unless a large minority of the population was in the government in which case it's not really a government.

Who is going to design and regulate these militias? Other militias? The non existant non funded government? THe militia themselves? You? The Wolf God? Please elaborate. What if a militia became larger than the general population somehow? What then?

Quote

Ad hoc and impromptu doesn't mean uncoordinated. I doubt the people who joined a militia to defend their land and family would then help some madman become dictator, especially after fighting against a madman who would be dictator.

You believe that people would rather submit themselves to a constant state of tribal warfare and random violence without any social safety net, then pay a few bucks in taxes. Thats not how people work. And dictatorship is not the only form of government possible.

Quote

I quit and find another job? Preferably one without a homicidal boss.

Ah but there we run into the problem of class consciousness again. You see, while your ideal working class does not organize itself and lacks class consciousness, the bourgeoisie, having ample free time and funds, do indeed enjoy socializing amongst their own kind, and thus have ample class consciousness.

So, you quit to avoid your boss' oppression. But he tells all his pals that "you're a little bitch" and that you will cause trouble with your insane demand to not be worked to death. So, you cant get a new job.

What all this comes down to is that thousands of years of building human civilization was not done for the express purpose of oppressing The Cobnuts.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 06 April 2010 - 01:57 AM

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 06 April 2010 - 04:55 PM, said:

From that one post that I was "bitch"ing about alone you made it abundantly clear that, in addition to everything else wrong with you, you're a racist, a sexist, and a social darwinist. Little bitch seems a more preferable lable by far than those.

I'm not a sexist or a racist. You just don't know the difference between imposed equality and actual equality. Actual equality being mutual dependency. I'm certainly not a "social darwinist" because that'd imply that I'm some form of individualist. As far as everything else is concerned, I've already given up enough of my time to a meathead who doesn't respond to reality and who's only response is mindless rhetoric.

[J m HofMarN]

Alright, lets have a look at your statement here and see what it indicates:

Quote

Don't be silly, Blacks don't work. Unemployment and "underemployment" is a purely urban and, to a much lesser degree, a suburban phenomena. The reason for banning unskilled women is because, let's face it, women are made to breed. Everybody growing vegetables and fruits would stem hunger. Minimum wages causes businesses to have less money which they can use to hire more workers.

Your first statement "blacks dont work" could be taken as a joke. However you then attribute almost all unemployment to urban areas usually populated by afro americans. This strengthens the racist message that blacks, as a race, are incapable of gainful (or at least, legal) employ. I believe you made this argument elsewhere, using african americans as justification for the ownership of military weaponry, lest they attack in human waves using CQB or whatever.

So yes, that is a racist statement.

Next we have your statement that women are made to breed. From a biological standpoint, this is true only if it is to be said of women and men: we are both made in order to reproduce and continue the species. However, youre talking from an economic and social standpoint. First off, this is batshit insane because a lot of familys cant make it with a husband and wife working, free education, and a minimum wage. You believe that if you remove 1 worker from the equation (halving the income) then remove minimum wage, further reducing the income, then take away public schooling, thus adding expense of private schooling or at least childcare, that SOMEHOW, that will lead to profits for... for anyone? Your argument is not only wrong because its horrificly offensive to women and blacks, but its also wrong because it would be a total disaster for civilization.

Social Darwinism? You argue that weak cultures/people/countries are undeserving of survival. You argue against protections for the working class from the wealthy (the traditional master race of Randists and social darwinists) You argue against any sort of safety net for the workers. In other words, they'll either thrive or die, and those who die deserved it for not being born rich, or becoming so. Thats social darwinism.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 08 April 2010 - 04:32 AM, said:

Alright, lets have a look at your statement here and see what it indicates:



Your first statement "blacks dont work" could be taken as a joke. However you then attribute almost all unemployment to urban areas usually populated by afro americans. This strengthens the racist message that blacks, as a race, are incapable of gainful (or at least, legal) employ. I believe you made this argument elsewhere, using african americans as justification for the ownership of military weaponry, lest they attack in human waves using CQB or whatever.

So yes, that is a racist statement.

Next we have your statement that women are made to breed. From a biological standpoint, this is true only if it is to be said of women and men: we are both made in order to reproduce and continue the species. However, youre talking from an economic and social standpoint. First off, this is batshit insane because a lot of familys cant make it with a husband and wife working, free education, and a minimum wage. You believe that if you remove 1 worker from the equation (halving the income) then remove minimum wage, further reducing the income, then take away public schooling, thus adding expense of private schooling or at least childcare, that SOMEHOW, that will lead to profits for... for anyone? Your argument is not only wrong because its horrificly offensive to women and blacks, but its also wrong because it would be a total disaster for civilization.

Social Darwinism? You argue that weak cultures/people/countries are undeserving of survival. You argue against protections for the working class from the wealthy (the traditional master race of Randists and social darwinists) You argue against any sort of safety net for the workers. In other words, they'll either thrive or die, and those who die deserved it for not being born rich, or becoming so. Thats social darwinism.

Actually the current state of affairs in America with blacks have the highest abortion rate despite being the second smallest racial group and women in America refusing to breed until their biological clock is almost up is something I agree with entirely. God bless left-wing ideals! But seriously, shame on you for being a typically ignorant American. And yeah, cultures that don't put emphasis on breeding tend to die out because of... SOCIAL DARWINISTS????? No? How about RANDISTS? No? Oh, right. It's because they die out naturally. Especially when they're aborting their kids or waiting to be too old to have kids because they're selfish workaholics/careerists/professionals. Again, I'm quite happy that Americans have chosen this course because a world with less Americans is a happier world.

But yeah, in my society, for my people, I wouldn't wish for women to have to work. That's the key word there, have. Because it's something that needs to be done. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's somewhat ironic that you support the whole work-ethic propaganda. You do know it was made by corporations because they were sick of their workers coming to work drunk everyday? Before this whole socialist crap, work was something that was needed to be done in order to live. Now socialists have it in everybody's head that working is a person's wage. Arbeit macht frei, and all that.

But hear this. I don't want women to have to strain themselves and raise children and breed children. The first is a man's job because, get this, men don't get pregnant so they're free to work as they see fit. The middle can be a shared task and the last is obviously a woman's job. What quasi-feminists like yourself want is to make life harder for women. To put more work on a woman's shoulders. For what? Female autonomy? You don't even believe in individual autonomy.

[J m HofMarN]

Please explain how not breeding is a left wing idea. Also, abortion RATE. Not overall abortions. You either misunderstand the idea of proportion, or you're deliberately trying to twist facts to gain a reaction. Please cite a culture or civilization that has died out because of abortion. Please explain why it is selfish not to have kids. Should people be taxed for every child they dont have, as you previously suggested?

No, work ethic was not made up by corporations. No, workers do not come to work drunk every day. No, socialism did not make work stop being something that was necessary for living. How do you mean that working is a person's wage? Wage in the sense of a payment? What?

Quote

But hear this. I don't want women to have to... breed children.

I don't want women to have to breed children either. Working is not solely a man's job. Society is chugging along fine with women working, our birth rates have not gone down, indeed we are in a state of net population growth. Lots of stuff about work empowering women and allowing them to be a greater part of society and not just a home oriented automaton.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 29 December 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

Please explain how not breeding is a left wing idea. Also, abortion RATE. Not overall abortions. You either misunderstand the idea of proportion, or you're deliberately trying to twist facts to gain a reaction. Please cite a culture or civilization that has died out because of abortion. Please explain why it is selfish not to have kids. Should people be taxed for every child they dont have, as you previously suggested?

Children are seen as a problem/burden. That's a left-wing thing. I don't think I've ever seen any sort of right-wing theorist proclaim that children (in general) are parasites or a burden by any other name. It's probably because left-wing theorists see people as expensive resources by default. Anyway...

abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp

abortionfacts.com/statistics/hispanic.asp

Black Americans have decreased in the overall percentage in America over the last few decades. Also, in third world countries (especially in China and India) there are many more female babies (or foetuses, I suppose) getting aborted which is causing a population imbalance. I can't be bothered finding the statistics for those. You can probably do it yourself.

Even though I believe that most women who have abortions do so because they're stupid and impressionable, it's probably best for everybody that people who can so casually kill their own kin (and always for utterly selfish reasons) not breed at all. I don't understand why pro-abortion governments don't just cut out the middle-man and give free sterilisations. It'd probably be much cheaper.

J m HofMarN, on 29 December 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

No, work ethic was not made up by corporations. No, workers do not come to work drunk every day. No, socialism did not make work stop being something that was necessary for living. How do you mean that working is a person's wage? Wage in the sense of a payment? What?

I think I've made myself clear. You're either trolling, joking or you're literally retarded. If the latter is true then I concede this "debate" as I don't wish to indirectly belittle a mental incompetent. Anyway...

boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/06/the_truth_about_labor_day

thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-15/barack-obamas-civil-rights-legacy-by-thaddeus-russell

thaddeusrussell.typepad.com

You should read TR's articles. He's one of the few Americans with a good head on his shoulders. Maybe because he was raised by hippies, nudists and niggers? You know, actual outcasts. Being an outcast helps one look at the society you're supposedly part of. I know. That's probably why I went from being a dedicated socialist in my early teens to a dedicated anarchist in my late teens and why I don't believe in anything now.

J m HofMarN, on 29 December 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

I don't want women to have to breed children either. Working is not solely a man's job. Society is chugging along fine with women working, our birth rates have not gone down, indeed we are in a state of net population growth. Lots of stuff about work empowering women and allowing them to be a greater part of society and not just a home oriented automaton.

I'm happy that you think that. The last thing I want is for you and other (Wasp) Americans to have children. From what I understand the Latino population has the smallest abortion rate and the largest birth rate. I like Latinos. I don't like Wasps. So I'm happy if you don't breed and they do. Technically speaking, we're allies. By preaching female autonomy (or whatever you wish to call it) and insisting that females work, you're helping to decrease the birth rate and increase the abortion rate among your people. As is evident wherever there is female autonomy. The opposite is true wherever there isn't female autonomy. I'm happy about that. Your people are rivals to my people. Especially since your people are aggressive expansionists set on conquering the planet.

It's actually funny because the Romans were very similar. In fact America is doing what Rome was doing. First with the price controls. Then, when that didn't work, they scapegoated speculators. Then, when that didn't work, they started making money like crazy. Then, when that didn't work, they introduced laws that legally tied people to the land so they could be taxed more efficiently. And guess how that turned out? Ironically it was the Roman tradition of an autonomous market (or economic secularism) that helped it become a superpower. Funny enough the economic reform was all done to maintain a needless empire that benefited only the ruling establishment in the short term and nobody in the long term. And to keep citizens placated in order to prevent dissent. Even FDR (your hero) proclaimed that all the expensive economic reforms he initiated was to decrease the chance of revolt/rebellion/revolution in America. He was part of ruling establishment, no different than the Roman families of yesteryear. I want you to think about that, Hoffman. If you can. You're nothing but a puppet for the people who fuck the poor. How long before you notice the strings, Hoffman? Do you even have the mental capacity to do so?

[Zatoichi]

I kinda just skipped ahead because there was a lot of talky and it was making my brain hurt. Concepts that I'm just too stupid to understand or too lazy to contemplate. But I think you're all missing a big thing here. There is seriously a town in the US where they basically got rid of most of their law enforcement, don't have adequate lighting at night, and probably a few other things that are just asking for crime to be rampant? I mean, assuming they haven't lost everything already, that's just a bleaming goldmine. Get a group of morally bankrupt people together, a few Mach trucks + trailers, enough weaponry to have the group well armed, and take all of their stuff. They resist, kill them. I mean, put a bit of a plan together and there you go. Pull it off well enough and who's going to stop you? Yes I'm oversimplifying things, but you get the picture.

Point of note, Grandma with .22 caliber rifle isn't going to do jack shit. That's a rifle for hunting small game. By small game I mean like squirrels. I ought to know, I actually own one currently. If Grandma doesn't get in a kill shot, I may not be stopped. That's provided Grandma has even had combat training, and training in the use of firearms. And what about the light conditions? If she can't see me (ooh lookie, a place with no street lights), it's going to be hard. And even the, grandma is probably pretty old. What kind of health conditions does she have besides just an old body that might make her less likely to survive in a deadly situation. Has she taken good care of herself throughout her life? There's just so many factors that really lower Grandma's chances of survival (gender doesn't really matter here. just going with the flow). I mean the type of gun doesn't even matter very much. There's just so many factors involved that make it so much harder for Grandma to stay alive (even if she's armed) if someone decides to "fuck with her" (not refering to sex ... though I think it would be hilarious if that's what I was actually talking about the whole time). Hell, what if I just snipe Grandma's ass. Not such a tough old bird now, are you!? Are You!?


(after scolling around a little)
Whaaaa wait, the meaning might be changed because I took it out of context (but probably isn't), but blacks don't work and women shouldn't be allowed to have unskilled jobs because they're only around to breed (typical male chauvinist side comment "dude, you forgot, cook, clean, do laundry, raise the kids, etc). You're joking right ... I mean you have to be Deuacon. There is just no way that you could possibly believe that. You'd have to know so very little about what things that actually go on in and around the world that it'd be maddening. I mean, for anyone to say something so purely stupid it would have to be humor, mocking, sarcasm, anything other than being straight up what they believed.

This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 29 December 2010 - 05:42 PM

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Children are seen as a problem/burden. That's a left-wing thing. I don't think I've ever seen any sort of right-wing theorist proclaim that children (in general) are parasites or a burden by any other name. It's probably because left-wing theorists see people as expensive resources by default. Anyway...

No, left wing theorists see having children when you dont want to as an infringement on the civil rights of a woman and a nod to the days when your neanderthal views prevailed and women were treated as maids that doubled as baby factories.

Quote

Black Americans have decreased in the overall percentage in America

You need to prove that that is because of abortion and not because of higher immigration/birth rate from hispanics. Let us also consider that economics is a factor. Latinos generally dont go for abortions because they are majority Catholic, but if that werent in the way, considering the prevalence of poverty among both minorities, it is likely that blacks and latinos would have the same abortion rate. Wealthy people just arent having abortions at the same rate as poor ones.

Quote

I believe that most women who have abortions do so because they're stupid and impressionable

I don't believe that you believe that, Deuacon.

Quote

I don't understand why pro-abortion governments don't just cut out the middle-man and give free sterilisations.

Because the latter option is more drastic and permanent. Someone who doesnt want to have a baby when they're 20 and working at Jiffy Burger might want to have kids when theyre 30 with a stable house, career and income.

Quote

conspiracy theories about labor day and work and some guy named Russel maybe?

I don't want links, I want you to tell me why you actually believe that socialists invented jobs, or turned work into something people had to do when previously they didnt, or made them not have to work when previously they did, or, alternatively, how labor day did that. I really cant make heads or tails of your argument other than that, as usual, you seem to believe that some shadowy group is using society to crush the indomitable superhuman potential of howard roarke or whoever.

Quote

As is evident wherever there is female autonomy. The opposite is true wherever there isn't female autonomy.

Just on record, are you arguing against civil rights for women? Or just saying that they should be required to live out their lives as professional diaper changers? Would they need to get permission from their husbands to work? Permission from the government? Look at any society where females have equal rights and you'll see some more important differences than just population growth.Quality of life, life expectancy, so forth and so on, there are more important indicators of quality of life than just how many babies are spat out per year. And even if population growth is the only one thats important, I would wager that infant mortality is much higher among backwards countries where women are treated as slaves, than in the united states, thus meaning the population growth likely isnt that different. Now, I don't believe female empowerment is directly tied to those indicators, but societies that tend to be advanced enough to take care of their sick and disabled are usually advanced enough to grant gender equality to one degree or another. And those that lack the enlightenment to grant equal rights, generally lack other sorts of enlightenment as well that makes them unpleasant places to live.

[civilian_number_two]

D's analysis leaves out some details. Let's say that the Black population is growing, which it is, and thet blacks have more abortions per capita than latinos and other ethnicities, and that the percentage blacks make up in the overall census has decreased, which he also says. The black population is still increasing. So ... at what rate? It must be less than the growth of another group, or other groups, so what are they? What is the annual growth rat of all of the ethnicities being compared? Can you show that abortion is causing a genuine decrease in the growth rate of the black population (don't get cute here), or is the smaller percentage, as JM asks, due to the greater growth rate of another group? And finally, what is the point of this comparison? Why bring it up?

D is saying that socialists invented the notion that work was its own reward, that having a career was better than having a job. One would assume this means that socialists convinced the working masses that they should educate themselves and get jobs of worth rather than slave away 12 hours a day in coal mines. Socialists created the "work ethic," and that before the invention of this notion no-one apart from the CEOs and the Capitalists liked their jobs. That's the argument, Hoff. I disagree.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

D is saying that socialists invented the notion that work was its own reward, that having a career was better than having a job. One would assume this means that socialists convinced the working masses that they should educate themselves and get jobs of worth rather than slave away 12 hours a day in coal mines. Socialists created the "work ethic," and that before the invention of this notion no-one apart from the CEOs and the Capitalists liked their jobs. That's the argument, Hoff. I disagree.

This is a first. We can debate what someones argument was. Who cares what it actually is, Deuacon will change it or attribute it to someone else later anyhow, then go on to defend it after that. But for now, here's what I think. This is Deaucon's original post regarding... whatever he was talking about.

Quote

But yeah, in my society, for my people, I wouldn't wish for women to have to work. That's the key word there, have. Because it's something that needs to be done. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself. It's somewhat ironic that you support the whole work-ethic propaganda. You do know it was made by corporations because they were sick of their workers coming to work drunk everyday? Before this whole socialist crap, work was something that was needed to be done in order to live. Now socialists have it in everybody's head that working is a person's wage. Arbeit macht frei, and all that.

If I'm reading this right the argument is that corporations created or influenced the socialist movement (they didnt) to prevent their employees from coming to work drunk every day (which didnt happen), causing people to believe that they had to take their jobs seriously because work was their duty to society. However, Deuacon is saying that work is something that needs to be done, it is a duty to oneself, but not to society because fuck society. And also, women were maybe tricked by the corporations, or the socialists, or both, into believing that they were obligated to work when really they're not.

Deuacon, I think, is blaming the capitalists for bringing women into the workforce by influencing left leaning women's lib and the socialist party in order to, I guess, cause population decline and bring wages down by broadening the workforce?

Thats the best I can work out. I really want to get into why either argument is completely wrong, tradesmans guilds having existed since medieval times, and the benefits of working helping to integrate one into society, but I'm sure we'll both agree on that. However, I am very much enjoying this side debate, which is very much like bickering amicably over the interpretation of an abstract work of art.