[civilian_number_two]

Well yeah, of course the Corporations created Socialism. Corporations LOVE Socialism! Look at the histoiry of trade unions in North America - where would they be if the Corporations hadn't worked so hard to create them? That's why they moved all of the manufacturing out of the country, so they could maybe start up unions in countries that didn't already have them!

[J m HofMarN]

And once they've unionized, workers will stop coming to work drunk, because that's what unions and socialists do. Clearly Deuacon has read Lenin's posthumous masterwork "The State And Not Going To Work Drunk All The Time"

[Deucaon]

Zatoichi, on 30 December 2010 - 08:28 AM, said:

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.

Male chauvinist? So I think that a man's duty is to provide for his family (an idea based entirely on biological circumstance, not a mindless feeling of superiority) and that makes me a male chauvinist? If not being a mindless ideologist makes me a male chauvinist then fine.

Also, keep in mind that the 22 can be a magnum or hollow-point. Yeah, small game. I sure as shit wouldn't wish to be shot with a 22 regardless.

J m HofMarN, on 31 December 2010 - 01:51 PM, said:

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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

Whatever you think I think, please don't have any children. Because that's the most important thing in the end.

civilian_number_two, on 31 December 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

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?

Other factors like more divorces, more use of birth-control and an unwillingness to stick to a single partner. Lack of "traditional values" or whatever they're called.

civilian_number_two, on 31 December 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

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.

Replace the word socialist with the word statist. Or power-monger. It's all the same. I'm not going to debate semantics with you.

civilian_number_two, on 31 December 2010 - 11:20 PM, said:

Well yeah, of course the Corporations created Socialism. Corporations LOVE Socialism! Look at the histoiry of trade unions in North America - where would they be if the Corporations hadn't worked so hard to create them? That's why they moved all of the manufacturing out of the country, so they could maybe start up unions in countries that didn't already have them!

Have you ever considered, even for a second, that the leaders of corporations like the idea of socialism because it gives them an excuse to monopolize the market without too much noise from the masses who will inevitably bear the brunt? Or the corporations can't become/stay corporations without help from the government? Or that governments use corporations to monopolize the market by proxy? Did you ever think about these things before mindlessly taking ideas at face value?

And unions seek to establish monopolies which means that a union is an economic hazard to every single person not in that specific union. They should be opposed on those grounds. Also, the only reason that unions exist is because most people (in America or wherever) need artificially higher wages because they can't afford to buy land because the price of land has been artificially raised by arbitrary bureaucratic wages or the monopolization by governments and/or their proxies. As well as other reasons due to government involvement.

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, on 08 January 2011 - 07:40 AM, said:

Male chauvinist? So I think that a man's duty is to provide for his family (an idea based entirely on biological circumstance, not a mindless feeling of superiority) and that makes me a male chauvinist? If not being a mindless ideologist makes me a male chauvinist then fine.

If you assume that women cannot provide for their families, that only men are able to do valuable work, then yes, you are a chauvanist. If you are unable to see that you are holding on to an antiquated ideology (the "biological circumstance" of being slightly less able to do manual labour in an era where most jobs are not laborious nevertheless still means women should never ever ever ever work if they plan to have children), then yes, you are in fact a "mindles ideologist" and you should expect to be ridiculed accordingly.

Quote

Other factors like more divorces, more use of birth-control and an unwillingness to stick to a single partner. Lack of "traditional values" or whatever they're called.

You're responding to my question of whether blacks have more abortions per capita and whether their poulation is decreasing proportionate to their percentage share in the total population of the country. Your response is that they have multiple partners and lack "traditional values." I don;t know where you're going with this.

Quote

Replace the word socialist with the word statist. Or power-monger. It's all the same. I'm not going to debate semantics with you.

Yes you are. You're trying to replace words in my sentences with other words, and that by definition is sematics. All you ever do is try to debate semantics, typically by taking words that have established and unambiguous common uses and inventing unique and nonsensical definitions for them. I imagine that's what you're doing even now with your use of the word "semantics."

Quote

Have you ever considered, even for a second, that the leaders of corporations like the idea of socialism because it gives them an excuse to monopolize the market without too much noise from the masses who will inevitably bear the brunt? Or the corporations can't become/stay corporations without help from the government? Or that governments use corporations to monopolize the market by proxy? Did you ever think about these things before mindlessly taking ideas at face value?

Corporate entities fought against unionization of labour, they continue to fight against corporate taxation and a legally-mandated minimum wage. Large corporations typically contribute to the Republican campaigns. You take this to mean that corporations LIKE the idea of socialism? No, I'll admit I hadn't considered that, not even for a second. When corporations outsource their labour to countries with no social safety net, or one that is much weaker than the one in the United States, then I concludse that they don't like socialsim one bit. If your complaint about corporate monopolies is that they are supported by some governments at the cost of the workers and of the consumers, then yeah, that can be a problem because government corruption and the power of corporations are both dangers to the middle class. But you're no longer talking about socialism and whether corporations and/or governments like it.

Quote

And unions seek to establish monopolies which means that a union is an economic hazard to every single person not in that specific union. They should be opposed on those grounds. Also, the only reason that unions exist is because most people (in America or wherever) need artificially higher wages because they can't afford to buy land because the price of land has been artificially raised by arbitrary bureaucratic wages or the monopolization by governments and/or their proxies. As well as other reasons due to government involvement.

Unions do not seek to establish monopolies. Or rather, they don't hold a monopoly on the practice. Corporations seek to do that however, which is why socialist laws were created to limit their ability to do so. The price of property is not as simplistic as you would believe; the government cannot tell people looking to buy how much they must spend, and the governemtn cannot tell sellers that they must sell their land for more. A socialist government might seek to LOWER the price of a thing, by taxing the sale too heavily beyond a set profit margin, but how would it manage to RAISE the price? .... ..... ....

But getting back to unions, their purpose is not simply to negotiate better wages for employees. There are many things going on in a labour agreement that are not directly related to wage.

Of course I'm sure this is all semantics.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Male chauvinist? So I think that a man's duty is to provide for his family (an idea based entirely on biological circumstance, not a mindless feeling of superiority) and that makes me a male chauvinist? If not being a mindless ideologist makes me a male chauvinist then fine.

What if, as in the US and many, many other countries, the man is out of work due to massive unemployment? What if his wife takes on the role of the bread winner and he ends up taking care of the kids? Does this make him less a man? Is he failing to pursue his duties either to society or his family? Why or why not? Also, is the woman in that situation inethical for leaving her family and her apparent god given place infront of the stove?

Quote

Whatever you think I think, please don't have any children. Because that's the most important thing in the end.

Deuc, please tell me that you understand the idea of natural selection. It doesnt matter if some people dont reproduce because others will, thats why when we do reproduce we produce multiple offspring so as their attributes and hardiness can be tested and the weak ones wont go on to pass along their genes, and those others will pass on their genes. In your everything-is-genetic ideology, this should mean that American leftists and gays will become extinct because we always have abortions and dont reproduce. So, yeah, I wont have kids, and I dont see that as a big deal. Are you planning to have children? How many havent you had? Should you be taxed for that?

Please tell me how divorce affects birth rate or fertility?

Quote

Have you ever considered, even for a second, that the leaders of corporations like the idea of socialism because it gives them an excuse to monopolize the market without too much noise from the masses who will inevitably bear the brunt? Or the corporations can't become/stay corporations without help from the government? Or that governments use corporations to monopolize the market by proxy? Did you ever think about these things before mindlessly taking ideas at face value?

No I have not. Generally when socialism is established it is at the expense of the corporatocracy. Nationalization, etc. Socialism encourages a state monopoly in essential industries or sometime just major industries. It does not hand out state monopolies to people looking to profit. And even if it did those profits go into government coffers. Also a government monopoly generally has to provide good pay and benefits to its workers and allow them to unionize, none of which are good for the bottom line in a short term sense that one might examine it from as a would be CEO. Not many people regularly consider that socialism, communism, or the trade union movement could be part of a vast corporate conspiracy. Mainly because most people will apply logic and a knowledge of the historical economic dialectic and find that such a thing is unlikely if not impossible. You'd have better luck asking us if Christ ever came to America to chat with a fruity pioneer.

Quote

And unions seek to establish monopolies which means that a union is an economic hazard to every single person not in that specific union. They should be opposed on those grounds. Also, the only reason that unions exist is because most people (in America or wherever) need artificially higher wages because they can't afford to buy land because the price of land has been artificially raised by arbitrary bureaucratic wages or the monopolization by governments and/or their proxies. As well as other reasons due to government involvement.

Please explain how a union exerts any control outside its specific industry. No, unions do not exist so people can by land. No, the price of land is not higher due to bureaucracy or... what I assume you mean to be the government ownership of land, or whatever you're talking about. Why would people form unions to get more money to buy land? If that was so, couldnt they just form groups to lobby for lower land prices or some such? It would be like MADD being formed because alcohol was too expensive, so they want to reduce the cost by discouraging people from buying it and manipulating the price once demand was lower.

PS: If you try to say that this might actually be the secret goal of MADD because there is no proof to the contrary, you give up any pretension that you are not actively trolling.

Civ - I too have noticed the convenient way in which every day words and governmental nomenclature is shifted to certain posters' advantages. However, I do want to debate semantics with you. Let me just clarify the words you used in your post accordingly and I can reply.

Quote

(Verb)Cows responding to my (noun)Thundercats of whether blacks have more (noun)Fun per capita and whether their poulation is (Verb)dancing proportionate to their percentage share in the total (noun)Church of Scientology of the country. Your response is that they (noun)eat multiple partners and lack (noun)"Pants" I don;t know where you're (verb)melting with this.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 09 January 2011 - 12:33 AM

[Zatoichi]

That was a spectacular MAD Lib. I laughed so hard I cried.

What they said, yeah, that attitude does make you a mindless ideologist and a male chauvanist. What does the state of existence, in this case being a woman, have anything to do with the ability to do work. You were saying they shouldn't be allowed to. That it is wrong of the women who hold such jobs to be doing so. I would guess that they should also be locked in a cage until such time as a man is ready to have sex with them. Yes I'm being ridiculously extreme here, but what you are trying to say isn't a far cry from that (At least it isn't as far as you might think it is).

I mean, if you said a blind person shouldn't be allowed to drive a vehicle because they cannot in fact see, I'd be on the same page with you there. But you're saying that a person's gender somehow affects whether or not they should or should not be allowed to work. And what would be the punishment if they did, stone them to death, burn them as a witch, are you kidding me? This line of thinking is awfully sexist methinks.

And, I have in fact seen blacks that work, go to school, and do various other things to improve their lot in life. I've met and know some of them as well. Not only is your wide-sweeping and generalalizing statement flagrantly wrong, it's also rather racist.

My point with the gun stuff is that in a society where everyone is allowed to murder each other over any problem, for no reason at all, to get their stuff, or whatever, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people out there who would be dead meat. The weak would not survive, and many of the rest would probably be made into slaves or some such thing.

This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 09 January 2011 - 09:16 PM

[J m HofMarN]

The denial of sexism is perhaps the most infuriating part of the whole argument. I mean, I've debated with people who have made some wrongful assertions. Generally it goes like this: "black people shouldn't do such and such, instead they should be eaten by bears" "ok, that's kind of racist." followed by A: "You're right, that was fucked up, I just had a bad day today." or B: "Yes I am a racist fuck black people" But Deuacon is the only one who will say "a woman's only place is to cook and take care of children" and then deny being a sexist while continuing to make that statement and then digging himself deeper with more absurd ideas. I've seen it from him before and I still can't figure it out. Perhaps his definition of sexist is something like "a radically secularized self loathing capitalist of the current trend" that would explain the continued denial.

[civilian_number_two]

My car is having trouble and so I had to take the bus. Everyone says "well at least you're in a city with good public transit," and yeah yeah that's true. But taking the bus sucks. Anyway, the bus driver was a lady. It was the end of her shift when I got on, and she stopped to swap out with the next driver, who was also a lady. Apparently in the Vancouver-based transit system, sitting on your ass all day driving a bus is no longer considered exclusively "man's work." See, D, many of the jobs done today don't require larger bodies with greater musculature. Gone are the days when the wagon train ran off course because the lady at the front of the line couldn't control that new draft horse. This is one example. I challenge you to think of others. Beware obvious traps.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 12 January 2011 - 09:18 PM

[Deucaon]

You've all clearly misunderstood my words. Probably because you're all stupid as a result of your conditioning. A woman is biologically designed to produce babies. Whether by nature or god or whatever your fancy. You can throw words like sexism around but there's no denying that. A man can't get pregnant. Men don't need to take time off work so they don't put stress on the baby in their womb or on themselves as a result of there being a baby in their womb. Then there's the idea that a woman should have babies, take care of children, take care of the housework and do paid work. The idea that this is somehow liberating is laughable. But, above all else, it's stupid to try to recreate society when you don't first recreate the biology of the lifeforms you wish to socially change. When babies can be grown in incubators then your vision of the world can come about without discord or illogicality. Until then you're just trying to change humans into something they, for the time being, can't be.

That aside, if this stems the birthrate, and I believe it does, then I'm all for American women being made to work a whole lot more than they should be working.

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon, on 12 January 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

You've all clearly misunderstood my words. Probably because you're all stupid as a result of your conditioning. A woman is biologically designed to produce babies. Whether by nature or god or whatever your fancy. You can throw words like sexism around but there's no denying that. A man can't get pregnant. Men don't need to take time off work so they don't put stress on the baby in their womb or on themselves as a result of there being a baby in their womb. Then there's the idea that a woman should have babies, take care of children, take care of the housework and do paid work. The idea that this is somehow liberating is laughable. But, above all else, it's stupid to try to recreate society when you don't first recreate the biology of the lifeforms you wish to socially change. When babies can be grown in incubators then your vision of the world can come about without discord or illogicality. Until then you're just trying to change humans into something they, for the time being, can't be.

That aside, if this stems the birthrate, and I believe it does, then I'm all for American women being made to work a whole lot more than they should be working.

I have NOT misunderstood your words. Women take time OFF work to have babies. The process does not render them incapable of later returning to work. Human children do not require the constant presence of a mother during every minute of their lives. Women can do more than "take care of babies." This other thing, "housework," if I have that correctly, that's like dusting and cooking and doing laundry and so on? A household of four necessitates a few hours' maintenance every week, maintenance which can be performed by anyone, be it male or female parent, or god forbid, children. Husband and wife swap cooking duties, and the machines do the rest. Dishwasher, clothes washer ... these two items alone took all the wind out of the "housework" argument about FORTY YEARS AGO. There is no biological necessity for women to stop working and to be a burden to themselves and their families just because they can and sometimes do become pregnant. There is no reason why you should think this would be so.

Your followup argument, that if babies could be grown in incubators, THEN they would require no maintenance and women could ignore them completely and work all they want, "without discord or illogicality," is insane. First you think that because women carry babies in their wombs, it is necessary that they stay at home for the rest of their lives, to do "housework and take care of the children," but if the babies were born some other way, then noone would need to stay at home? How do you do this?

[J m HofMarN]

You've all clearly misunderstood my words. Probably because you're all stupid as a result of your conditioning. A woman is biologically designed to produce babies. Whether by nature or god or whatever your fancy. You can throw words like sexism around but there's no denying that. A man can't get pregnant. Men don't need to take time off work so they don't put stress on the baby in their womb or on themselves as a result of there being a baby in their womb. Then there's the idea that a woman should have babies, take care of children, take care of the housework and do paid work. The idea that this is somehow liberating is laughable. But, above all else, it's stupid to try to recreate society when you don't first recreate the biology of the lifeforms you wish to socially change. When babies can be grown in incubators then your vision of the world can come about without discord or illogicality. Until then you're just trying to change humans into something they, for the time being, can't be.

That aside, if this stems the birthrate, and I believe it does, then I'm all for American women being made to work a whole lot more than they should be working.

Tragically, the plebeian masses continue to misunderestimate the brilliant parables of Deucaon. Sigh... will we ever learn?

A woman is in fact not biologically designed to produce babies. She kinda needs a man to help with that. This is called a pair. This pair can take care of the children better than a single parental unit. This is because they share the tasks. You consistently insist that a woman HAS to do all the house work and child care, as if the man were physically incapable. Why is this? Is it not possible that the male partner could both work and share in house hold chores? What about day cares which you can get government aid to send your kids to. PS: No one makes women work. Some don't. Same with some men. Some COUPLES (note: not just the woman) decide that one of them should stay home with the children if they have any. For some women, and some men, being a mother or father is a proud and rewarding full time occupation. Others might enjoy a career outside of the home. You're so much a libertarian that you advocate handing out assault rifles to everyone, and using those assault rifles to randomly murder government personnel, etc etc, and yet a woman going to work is too much a radical freedom for you? Priorities. Get some.

Quote

But, above all else, it's stupid to try to recreate society when you don't first recreate the biology of the lifeforms you wish to socially change.

Did the fundamental genetics or biology of black people change when they were freed from slavery? granted the right to vote? women's right to vote? american revolution? canadian sovereignty? prohibition?

Quote

When babies can be grown in incubators then your vision of the world can come about without discord or illogicality. Until then you're just trying to change humans into something they, for the time being, can't be.

I am unaware of any babies being grown in incubators presently, but society seems to be working out just fine despite the majority of women working. PS: Please show a graph of the US birthrate or population since the 50s or 60s (around the time women began to work more often) and point out where either indicator has gone into decline (hint: they haven't)

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 13 January 2011 - 03:42 PM