Menchise

The mere fact that it's focusing on the kids/teenagers demographic is one of the reasons why it will fail, because that invariably means that the material will be dumbed down. Some cable channels already have one hour timeslots for this sort of thing, and most of the reviews/previews are patronizing (sort of like Gamespot Kindergarten), not to mention their tendency to be gender-biased. Gaming TV also has some severe disadvantages when compared to print and online mags, the most obvious being the lack of interactive demos.

53 on first attempt. In real life it would have been 503.

I read very little fiction so I only have two favourites. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams) Foundation (Isaac Asimov) [ 04-26-2002, 02:33: Message edited by: Menchise ]

LOL!

AUSTRALIAN CAPITALISM: You have 2 cows. The government shuts down 2 schools to subsidize milk production while boasting about its surplus budget. THIRD WORLD CAPITALISM: The IMF lends you two cows on the condition that you only produce meat. You kill the cows and sell the meat to pay the interest on the loan. The IMF lends you two more cows...

LMAO!!! [ 04-19-2002, 07:30: Message edited by: Menchise ]

This will definitely be my final post in this thread because I've had enough of debating for now.

quote:In all of our threads discussing the subject, you have yet to detail exactly how this social restructuring would take place, and when asked you ignore it.How exact do you want me to be? quote:What fraction of the people of Earth would you expect to go happily along after being "liberated"?The 'fraction' that liberates itself. quote:What would happen if 1/3 of the earth decided to form it's own capitalist government and "compete" with the other 2/3 of the earth and win?It would not win because nobody would work there. quote:Menchise, the reason we say you are living in a fantasy, if you think that people are all going to happily jump into the socialist lifestyle and dream, you will be dissappointed.If you think that I believe I could convince anyone here that socialism is an alternative worth exploring, you don't know me very well. quote:I'm going to put you on the spot with one last question. How would you feel if (when) your grand socialist uprising fails due to the factors we've been telling you?If that happens, I'll find a third way. quote:You have supported your argument with a supposed experiment in a controlled environment which leaves out millions of variables that influence and determine the course of human action.Accepted. quote:There will always be factors that will provoke violent action by a group of humans...ie Fear, Greed, Racial Hatred, Religious Intolerance, Revenge, Lust for Power. And the people who commit those acts will always rationalize their actions. History has PROVEN this to be True.History only proves that such acts exist. It does not prove that they are acts of human nature. quote:Good post Stormshadow, the same point I'm trying to get across except I get long winded and stuck replying 'inside' Menchise's post.I have done the same with other posts. quote:Menchise, how would Socialism cure those problems?1. Socialism will not cure all of the world's problems and will probably create some new ones. I simply regard it as a step forward. 2. Socialism can cure the problems of greed and lust for power (which are essentially the same thing), because the survival of individuals in socialism does not depend on such behaviour, thus there is no need to exercise it. People lust for power in capitalism because power insures survival in the system. The other factors mentioned by Stormshadow vary according to context, thus they are too general to address in a single point. quote:By your own admission also Socialism has failed every time it was tried, what's to keep it from failing again? I'm pretty sure Lenin didn't set out to fail. I don't think any of them did.By learning from past mistakes, they can be avoided in the future. Lenin made the mistake of centralizing proletarian organization (which contradicted Marx). quote:Capitalism just keeps working and growing. People who imagine some unfairness in life by not being one of the achievers are filled with... envy.How convenient that you explain away every claim of unfairness as the envy of 'have-nots'. It's no wonder that you believe capitalism works despite the chaos that is spreading throughout the system. Argentina, once the starring example of the IMF's ability to develop capitalism, has collapsed into economic and political upheaval. Italy has just had the largest general strike in 20 years (12 million workers). The USA, preacher of 'free' trade and competition, has introduced trade barriers to keep its faltering steel industry going. Third world debt continues to increase, putting more strain on capitalist economies that are almost non-existent. The writing is on the wall: capitalism is in crisis, and it will only get worse.

quote:Menchise, according to you, approximately half pushed this button. Exactly how did this effect them other than the fact you have "proven" that at least half of the population is not sick mindless beasts bent on torture and murder?The reason why half pushed the final button was not because they were bent or tended towards torture or murder. They pushed because they were told to do so by an authority figure, despite the intense physical reactions that their own bodies were going through. This proves that such destructive behaviour is not within human nature; it is influenced by social constructs that have conditioned human consciousness. quote:I'll bet that if you repeated this experiment, the ratio would not be the same throughout the test if the "shocker" was hooked up to themselves. Authority wouldn't matter, people would not subject themselves to anything like that.Don't be so sure. People have harmed themselves in many ways simply because an authority figure suggested it. Cult suicides are one example. quote:They would however subject others to it, even if it pains them. Doesn't mean they want their income distributed to the other side of the wall though.That is a false generalization of socialism. The reformists aim to redistribute through taxation and other such methods, but the revolutionaries aim to build a new system where such redistribution is not required. quote:Once again, assuming this is a real experiment, you believe that every person felt "horror" at the experience. Why do you think that people rape and murder each other? Because it makes them feel bad? Why does it happen so much?Why do you assume that rape and murder is within human nature simply because it happens? If that were the case, then it would be much more common. quote:I'm willing to bet that if you went to a maximum security prison, and took all the murderers and let them try this experiment, they would probably skip straight to the last button while laughing uncontrollably. Most murderers kill a specific person because of a specific motivation. Your assumption is falsely based on the belief that murderers generally kill indiscriminately. quote:Not everyone is the same. If we were the same, I'd be fantasizing along with you about the great Marxist Utopia.This is one assumption that really pisses me off. Marxism is not against individuality! It is not an imposition of sameness! It is not a beehive! Two plus two does not equal five!!! Marxism is about the application of a common cause: the free development of each as the precondition for the free development of all. It actually depends on individuality to work. Capitalism depends on the oppression and exploitation of individuals for the benefit of a plutocratic elite. I've got work to do now, so I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

quote:Just in case you haven't heard, excess money isn't a necessity for most of us.I remember one debate where you and Jaguar wrote, "Who are you to decide how much money is too much?". To have any money is to immediately survive in capitalism. To have more money is to insure long term survival in capitalism. quote:Also, in case you haven't heard, each human being is an individual capable -- and quite willing -- of deciding what consists of their needs. To one, luxary may be a need. To another, luxary is simply frivolous.I know that. It's called demand. So what's your point? quote:Therefore, considering you can't lump all of humanity into one idealistic category, human nature defeats you again. Human nature is primarily the nature of our differences and the fact that each human reacts differently than the next.And now you contradict your previous posts that attempted to lump all of humanity into the Aggressive n' Greedy category. quote:You mean, humans are allergic to hurting one another?The experiment speaks for itself. quote:You know, Jaguar and $ilk are right. You are living in your own world and you're obviously totally sheltered from what the REAL world is like.I have supported my argument with a real world example that neither you, Jaguar, or $iLk has invalidated, so drop the fantasy talk.

quote:If you want to truly understand human nature, try the experiment again, except this time - have the people hook themselves up and push the button. Human nature - I bet they won't do it. Authority will not make them do what is not good for themselves. Many people can handle screwing other people over, some feel bad, but others realize that sometimes it's the nature of the game.It wasn't some, it was most (some dared to stop the experiment themselves by refusing the push), and they didn't just feel bad, their bodies reacted allergically: They're hands were shaking, their bodies were quivering! The experience made them physically ill!!! How could such acts be acts of human nature when humans are INHERENTLY ALLERGIC to them??!! They continued because a doctor (a 'legitimate' authority in the status quo) told them to continue. Of course the subjects would be less willing to shock themselves because they would be experiencing the pain, but if a doctor told them to do it, they probably would, although the survival instinct would prevent them from 'killing' themselves with the final shock. Then again, who knows what anyone in such pain would do to stop it, especially with the relentless urgings of authority? quote:To address that experiment, let's change it around a bit yet again. Put the same buttons there with the same result. Yet, have the "victims" be on the other side of the world. Offer progressively more money to people as they press the higher intensity buttons.In the current social structure, money is required for survival. Assuming that the authoritarian stimulus is not present and that every subject didn't have much money in the first place, the experiment would only indicate the existence of a survival instinct. Such an experiment would not indicate greed unless the subject was committing the act for an unnecessary item.

Once again, I have disturbed a hornet's nest. Since it would take me all day to respond to every point in daily replies, I'm not going to bother. Here is one of what could become a few general responses. The question of human nature: There is a significant difference between nature and capacity. Human beings are capable of a wide variety of behaviours that are not natural behaviours for human beings. A famous example is a psychological experiment with test subjects who sat in front of a panel with a row of buttons. They were told that these buttons sent electric shocks to someone who was standing on the other side of the wall (the subject could hear but not see the person). The subject was instructed to push each button, starting from the lowest setting to the 'lethal' setting. The subject would hear progressive screaming and pounding on walls as each button was pressed. Eventually, the subjects started to plead and beg for the experiment to stop, and their bodies started to quiver uncontrollably. Despite their horror, the majority of subjects continued to follow instructions. Approximately half pressed the final button, and most subjects were overwhelmed by feelings of horror and guilt after the experiment ended. If such acts were within human nature then they wouldn't result in the devastating sensations that traumatize the humans beings who commit such acts. People who go against human nature and commit to destructive behaviour tend to be compelled by social constructs; in the context of the experiment above, the social construct is the legitimacy of authority.

quote:Human nature being what it is, socialism can NEVER work, it will ALWAYS be hijacked, ALWAYS.We obviously have different interpretations of human nature. quote:There are those that hunger for power, and those that hunger for it will do anything to get it and to keep it.That applies to any political system; that's why we have scandals. The only effective deterrent is the removal of such positions of power, hence the dismantling of the state system. quote:Capitalism works because it takes into consideration Human nature. As a matter of fact, without Human nature, capitalism would not work.If the system takes human nature into consideration, then why do so many humans want to overthrow it? And don't give me that crap about them being lazy or jealous of wealth because the majority of socialists are hard working and many are well-off. quote:Those of us that feel the need to succeed, the need to excel, we thrive in capitalism, those that wish to do one thing and are comfortable with that one thing, THRIVE in capitalism. Anyone can and will thrive in capitalism, it is self correcting, it grows, it expands, it lifts ALL boats. Just as a republican form of government with a true Bill of Rights will thrive until it is perverted into what it is not.That is what I call a fantasy. It's like saying that people fail because they feel the need to fail, that the exploited are comfortable with exploitation. quote:Capitalism is the best system so far that takes into account human nature, look at the US, it is the biggest and greatest country ever created, why? because of capitalism, our poverty level is joke, less then $20,000 a year and you are impoverished, China, less then $300 a year is normal, it is the average, USSR was the same way. I don't recognize China as a genuinely socialist nation, but for the sake of fairness, three hundred dollars in China has more than ten times the purchasing power of three hundred dollars in America, the Chinese people are more self-sufficient in the production of basic goods (e.g. they grow their own food), and China's population is twice the size of America's. As for American wealth: the USA preaches 'free' trade internationally while installing trade barriers around itself; ten percent of its income is generated by organized crime; and many of the nation's wealthiest business owners operate in corrupt or authoritarian regimes where money is put before freedom, human rights, and even life itself. quote:Socialism CANNOT work because no one owns anything, and therefore does not care about it.Socialism CAN work because there is no private property, and therefore what the worker builds does not become someone else's personal object to call their own. quote:Personal ownership creates personal responsibility and pride in that ownership and therefore will thrive.Personal ownership creates a heightened sense of power and the desire to maintain that power. Personal responsibility comes from personal freedom, and pride comes from what you build, not what you buy. quote:Given an option most people will try and do the best they can with the skills and intelligence they have, and in a capitalism they can do that, in a socialism they never get the chance, they are placed in the puzzle arbitrarily, where they are needed. Whether they have an interest in that occupation or not. In capitalism, too many doctors, price for doctors goes down, making less doctors. In socialism, there is not that self correcting mechanism.The only difference between capitalism and socialism in this regard is who or what decides that there are too many doctors. In capitalism it's the market, in socialism it's the collective. Both function the same way except that markets are profit-centred and collectives are human-centred. quote:THERE HAS TO BE CENTRAL control of some sort or another, telling people where they can and cannot fit in. That central control is what perverts it and makes it unworkable, also the fact that there is nothing to motivate the workers to work harder.Collectives are the antithesis of centralized organization. There is no hierarchy, everyone has a say, and everyone votes. Collective organization is already a proven method in some workplaces. quote:I want to make more money, I work harder, and I make more money, in socialism, I want to make more money, well, too bad, and therefore my motivation is gone.First, only some types of socialism support flat work rates (e.g. Proudhonism); Marx himself disagreed with it. Secondly, only some types of socialism hold to the assumption that monetary currency is essential to any economy; it's only essential to a market economy. The motivation is in the level of human need that is met. Every worker receives the basics (shelter, food, clothing, etc.) because they're the preconditions of equal liberty. Work hard and higher levels of human need are met. quote:Capitalism lifts all boats, creates jobs, creates goods that are needed, and creates goodwill and motivated people.I'm not familiar with the 'lifts all boats' espression, but creating jobs and goods that are needed is what any economic system does, and it does not create goodwill or motivated people. quote:This is another reason we have this war. Israel is a democracy, it is also a capitalist society. It is RICH, those that do not have that opportunity are jealous and wish to take that which they have NOT worked for and therefore do not deserve. The "Palestinians" do not have a democracy, they do not have a capitalist society, why? because they are run by those same power hungry people that I mentioned to you earlier.A possibility, but the Palestinians are not socialist either. quote:They wish to make Israel the scapegoat for why thier people are in such bad shape. It is Israels fault that you live in squalor, it is Israels fault that you live without food and money. Nevermind that we, the leaders of you do not give you the opportunity necessary for you to succeed, we do not want you to succeed, we want you miserable, that is what keeps us in power. THe worse off you are, the better and easier it is for us to use Israel as the scapegoat to stay in power.Every state, including the capitalist states, uses scapegoats to explain away economic and political problems. quote:Human Nature Menchise, it can be good and it can be evil. capitalism is a way to put that human nature to good use.My reply to this point is at the end of my post. quote:And it works, look at the US, we lost almost a trillion dollars with that terrorist attack, we suffered, but it NEVER came near to destroying us. Name me one country, just one, that would survive, let alone prosper after such an incident.Japan. quote:I work to support MY family, I WORK to take care of MYSELF. I WORK FOR ME!!! That is why it works!! and because I work for MYSELF, I create other jobs through the products that I buy for MYSELF, I make others rich by buying products that they produce for ME.Socialism is the same, except for the currency. quote:Throwing that "it's good for society" crap is just that, CRAP, and will never stick, but throw out that, "It's good for YOU" out there, and it will work EVERY time.It's good for you and society. quote:I work for me, NOT YOU, NOT ARAMIKE, NOT GOALIE, NOT ANYONE BUT ME. I make others successful, my boss mainly, because I want to make myself money, and therefore make him money as well. IT WORKS, and it WORKS far beyond what most imagine!!!How can you say that you don't work for anyone but you and mention that you make money for your boss as well? It does not work because bosses are compelled by the competition to get as much out of workers for as little as possible, and what the worker produces becomes the personal property of the business owner who didn't lift a finger to make it, not to mention the surplus value that the owner accumulates from the workers' labour. The worker performs most of the productive input without receiving a fair share of the output. It's exploitation, pure and simple. quote:You think that the SC would have created this game in a socialist system. Very few people play it when you compare it to other games. It is a NICHE title. In a socialism, it would never have had a chance. WHY? because the central controllers would have looked at Derek and said, we don't need this game, there is no NEED for it, therefore, we are sending you off to the plant to put together automobiles or televisions or something. Without capitalism and a capitalist society, Battlecruiser would not exist, and I can name around a billion other products that would NOT exist without capitalism.Rubbish. Marx himself describes recreation as a human need. He even argues that humans can become physically unhealthy without it! Battlecruiser would exist because it's an excellent product, and I'll bet that it wouldn't have been released unfinished by a publisher. I can also name some products that would not exist without capitalism: the hundreds of crappy "me too" clones that divert resources away from developers with something original to offer. quote:It thrives on greed, it thrives on personal want, it thrives on luxury type items. It THRIVES period, because of the very human nature that makes SOCIALISM IMPOSSIBLE.The need for recreation is not a characteristic of greed, and the fact that it's a need means that it's not a luxury. quote:Human nature, it all comes down to that in the end, and without taking that into consideration, ALL other systems, sooner or later will fail. Capitalism uses human nature, actually it depends on it, that is why it works so well.Capitalism depends on the suppression of human nature by manipulating the human capacity to adapt for the sake of survival. It puts human beings in a social structure where they must compete in order to survive, so they compete; It divides humanity into a hierarchy of workers and owners, so they aim for higher positions to insure survival; it forces owners to exploit workers in order to maintain their positions, so they exploit; it forces workers to not only allow themselves to be exploited, but to feel grateful about it, so they do. This is not human nature, it's oppression. If greed was a natural inheritence of humanity, then socialism would never have existed because human beings would have been incapable of recognizing greed as destructive. The mere fact that humans can admit how wrong it is proves that it is not within human nature to behave in such a way.

quote:i had been under the impression that only Bishamon and Balor fleets were active...Sounds like a wake up call. Aramike, Gallion, Andergum, maybe there should be Spectre and Eversor roll calls commencing soon, especially Spectre (I can't remember the last time we had one).

quote:This fantasy you live in is BEYOND me. I am just so stunned that someone as obviously as intelligent as you, would fall into this trap of socialism. Socialism is a dream thought up by a bunch of intelligentsia elitists who have NOT A CLUE how the REAL world works.I am sure that the same thing was said to the intelligentsian dreamers of capitalism way back when feudalism was the real world. quote:Get out of school, get a REAL job and come back and talk to me in a year, then we may speak the same language, but until then, your fantasy is just that, a fantasy, that cannot and will not come to fruition. It is AGAINST ALL human nature.That's what people said to Mary Wollstonecraft when she wrote about women having equal rights. quote:The only times that socialism has been tried it has destroyed that which it tried to save or create, and until you figure out that IT CANNOT WORK, and will NEVER work, you will live in a world of disapointment.The only times that socialism has been tried it has either been over-centralised, hijacked by psychotic dictators, isolated from the rest of the world, or sabotaged by military coups. It took approximately 200 years for France to build a lasting republic after overthrowing the feudal monarchy, and they went through most of the above. Should they have given up after Napolean?

quote:Yeah, right. Now that is a pipe dream. I'd like to see someone try to get Muslim extremist states to serve a collective good of those that don't agree with their philosophies.Why would there be any need to convince extremist states to serve a collective good when those states would no longer exist? quote:Socialism won't work at all due to hundreds of economic factors. It especially won't work, however, due to the nature of one serving the all. Too many "ones" will only serve to a select group.Why does any one serve all in any organization or group? A common cause. The common cause of socialism is in the interests of all working people, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. quote:Of course it's NOT! It's called "policing".Same act. Same purpose. Different actors. Policing is a description of a 'legitimate' use of terror. quote:The only time that it would be terrorism is when the MAJORITY of people under that government stands against the government.What about when a minority is being violently persecuted? Is that not terrorism? How many people does it take before it becomes terrorism? quote:By your definitions (which are extremely unfounded), throwing tear gas into an unruly crowd is a form of non-lethal terrorism.Why does anyone use tear gas? To disperse crowds. What does tear gas do? Irritates and/or inflames the mucous membranes. How does that force crowds to disperse? Because the sensation of feeling your insides burning up is terrorizing. quote:Attacking an organized mob's drug warehouse would be terrorism. I don't buy that, and I can't see how any thinking man would.It's a legitimate use of terror. quote:Not really. Apparently you missed the part of the word "terrorism" that says "terror". Terrorism is to find a resolution by using terror. War is a find a resolution by using force. While the use of force may cause terror, it is not terrorism due to the fact that the force employed is the primary reason for the achievement of goals. Terrorism's force is NOT at ALL the primary reason for it's acheivements. Bombing children doesn't actually accomplish a logistical end, while war does. There is a substative difference.By your definition, the Hezbollah is no longer a terrorist group because now they're using military grade weapons in their attempt to siege northern Israel. The only difference is in the effectiveness of the weapons, which is not a substantive difference. quote:I don't mean to speak for $ilk, but I'm guessing he's basing that "assumption" on several thousand years of human history. Oh yeah -- and the fact that we're even conflicted right HERE.This is a debate (an exchange of ideas), not a conflict (an imposition of ideas). quote:Where's your precedence?The constant, relentless efforts by people for peace. quote:How do you measure what is earned? Output. If everyone recieves equally regardless of output, you then have a shortfall. Economics 101.It's not about receiving equally, it's about receiving what is earned. That is receiving from the output relative to the input (a.k.a. getting out what you put in). In capitalism, the property owner receives the lion's share of the output while the workers receive the bread crumbs, yet it is the workers who contributed most of the productive input. Sure, the owner may have kickstarted production with capital investment, but it was the labour of the workers that made it productive. quote:If that something that works requires perfection, then it does.Socialism does not require perfection, and it does not require people to be the same. All it needs is the application of its common cause to all working people. quote:If you're worried about the stagnation of civilization, you should be cheering the next great war. Throughout history civilization has made its greatest strides through conflict.Civilization has made its greatest strides through revolution; the revolution of Feudalism over Slavery, and of Capitalism over Feudalism. I am cheering the next revolution: Socialism over Capitalism. quote:To artificially create a system which places a glass ceiling over the heads of over-achievers, and lifts up underachievers is truly cheating everyone of their self worth.That is what capitalism does. It places a glass ceiling over the producers of wealth (the proletariat) while lifting up the inheritors of wealth (the bourgeoisie). Socialism aims to remove the ceiling and the lifters (the free development of each as the precondition for the free development of all). [ 04-13-2002, 22:40: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:The world is not, and will never be ordered and correct. There will always be conflict.On what do you base that assumption? quote: But saving lives is what's important, and sometimes to save life, sacrifices must be made. You cannot expect to aquiece to the demands of everyone who has a beef with Western civilization and expect problems to end.I'm not suggesting such a thing. quote:In the end it comes down to people taking responsibility for their own actions - something many people nowadays do not do. These people in Arab nations do not accept responsibility for their own actions, they seek to blame everyone else, those who actually succeed for their problems.What actions? I assume that you're not referring to the acts of terrorism since they are applications of their so-called blame on everyone else, and the unnamed actions which you say they don't take responsibility for occurred before the application of such blame. quote:Success comes from helping yourself, not being nurtured along like a two year old your entire life.I agree. quote:Thus socialism is often a system that encourages personal failure and lack of self worth, and I see it as the ultimate degradation of human character when put into practice.Socialism is not about nurturing people like two year olds; it's about working people receiving what they earned as working people instead of receiving what the market says they're worth as commodities. quote:Yeah it would, but life isn't perfect - people are definitely not perfect, therefore a perfect system cannot be built on imperfect parts of the whole.It doesn't take perfection to make something that works. quote:That's the inherent danger in socialism.What's dangerous is the growing indifference to injustice that is spreading throughout our current society. Many people have become so demoralized by previous failures to change society for the better that they have given up on the prospect. That is how civilization stagnates.

Jaguar, can you be more specific? Do you disagree with everything I've written or just my opinions on how to solve the conflict?

So much for my 'final' post. quote:I would agree that it is not necessary for a culture to have a state, but I would add that it is intrinsic to the desire to be a culture to want a state to represent that culture. States with dual or triple or multiple cultures are always struggling with the desire of one or more cultures within the state to declare themselves a state.That's because a culture with its own state becomes the dominant culture within the state. When you have conflicting cultures within one state, the motivation for separatism is obvious. The desire for a state has less to do with wanting cultural representation than it does with wanting cultural power. Who benefits from that power? The beneficiaries of estranged labour. quote:Whether the creation of Isreal is right or wrong is immaterial. One could spend energy arguing that the creation of Canada, Australia/New Zealand, America, Mexico et al is wrong, and one could be right in that argument. It won't change the fact that these nations exist and will not go away.Nations come and go with time. They're not permanent. quote:Oops, forgive me, I meant to type "Karl" Marx. In case you don't know (and you may have been asking due to my spelling error), Karl Marx was the Father of Communism.I knew. I was just joking about the spelling of the name. quote:As you probably know, one of the ideas advocated by Communism is that all land be controlled by the state.No. In the context of Marxism, the control of land by a proletarian state is a temporary measure for the purpose of wresting capital from the bourgeoisie so that it can be used to build a new social structure or society; it's a transition period, sort of like the period between 1776 and 1787 when the USA didn't have a constitution yet. Marx's definition of Communism is what happens after the transition period has concluded, which is when the state starts to decline into oblivion as it no longer has a purpose for existing. quote:When the morality against killing is set aside in favor of targeting civilians to achieve a political end, the only proves that socialism would NEVER work. Why? Because in order for a society driven on religious belief such as the Palestinians to be involved in a socialist order, that socialist state must conform to their religious desires.No it doesn't. To conform to such desires is to make one culture dominant. Any culture that cannot survive without state-sanctioned domination is not a real culture; it's statist propaganda. The end of the state system is the end of such destructive influences. I see no reason why Islam or Judaism would require such power to exist unless the culture has been perverted by the propaganda of state or pseudo-state entities, such as the PLO's Covenent of 1968 and Ben-Gurion's concept of racial democracy. The dismantling of the state system will separate the religion from the propaganda. quote:War is not terrorism. War can be defensive in nature. Terrorism, by its very definition, is OFFENSIVE in nature at all times.What about when a government uses force on its own people to defend its power? Is that not terrorism? Of course it is! It's not a big stretch to say that using force on another people to defend one's power is also terrorism, even when it's immediately necessary. War is just a grandiose euphemism that is used when terrorism is believed to be necessary. [ 04-13-2002, 00:26: Message edited by: Menchise ]

quote:Terra Nova: Strike Force CentauriYES! I knew I had missed one!

OK, I'm going to try to make one final post for the second time, and this time I'm taking the gloves off. This thread initially started with the question, 'Who is right; Israel or the Palestinians?' The debate over this question has branched into sub-debates about what constitutes terrorism and which culture is more worthy. Here is my 'compact' statement to express my opinions once and for all, and if I sound like a brick-headed socialist, then so be it! This conflict is ultimate proof of the destructive nature of the state system. The motivation behind the formation of the Zionist movement was the problem of anti-Semitism. In other words, the state-sanctioned Euro-Christian culture found convenience in the use of Jews as scapegoats. The Zionists came to the conclusion that this problem could be solved by establishing a Jewish state, with which the culture could be based free of inroads by the anti-Semites. In other words, they decided that in order to defend the Jewish culture from the state-sanctioned Christianity of Europe, they must make Judaism into a state-sanctioned culture, thus assimilating into the state system. The decision to establish this state in Palestine clearly did not sit well with the Palestinian Arabs, who wanted Palestine to be their own state sanction after living under Turkish rule for 400 years. The treatment of both sides as pawns by the British and Americans didn't help matters. The existence of 'holy sites' sacred to both religious cultures in the region contributed to the conflict, since state jurisdiction over those sites suggested that they were owned by one side. Every side in this conflict made one big mistake when they followed the false assumption that a culture needs a state to have self-determination. The only reason why so many believe in this assumption is because other state-sanctioned cultures are using their power to expand their influence at the expense of other cultures without such power. The Israel-Palestinian conflict is a polarized version of this struggle for cultural dominance. Cultural dominance only serves the property owners of a nation - which the state is designed to protect above all others - especially the beneficiaries of estranged labour. Estranged labourers are denied the fruits of the national cultures, thus they do not have a culture to call their own. Therefore, the emancipation of labour from estrangement is the emancipation of culture from statist conflict. quote:Huh? "War is wrong"? How utterly simplistic.I agree. quote:I suppose then, that defending your country against an aggressor that has vowed to "push you into the sea" is wrong?To do what one must do to defend oneself is unavoidable, even when it's terrorism (a.k.a. war). What one does after the end of the unavoidable is how one is judged. quote:Smile then, because Carl Marx loves you.Who's Carl Marx?

System Shock Wing Commander Descent Civilization 2 TIE Fighter Diablo Starcraft Gabriel Knight Quake

Citizen Kane 2001: A Space Odyssey Star Wars Vertigo Apocalypse Now The Truman Show

quote:Just because I will be old, doesn't mean I will be weak.The young would disagree if they followed your logic. quote:They have lived, survived, and stagnated in there. They never flourished. Their sultans drained the resources, money, and everything they could out of their population, getting rich in the process and giving nothing to their population in return.I guess the sultans didn't bother with helping the 'weak'. quote:The strenght of a civilization is defined by it's achievements in arts, technology, and other areas, including their ability to use natural resources (hell, who do you think was more evolved, neanderthal or a sword weilding knight). Arabs lived on that land for thousands of years, but they couldn't even make anything resembling what Israel made in their 50 years it was there. So yes. Israel is worth much more to the world then all the arab counries combined.Strength does not equal worthiness, and Israel had a lot of help in the process. quote:That statement right there prooves my first point about socialistic/liberatarian views and how they equate to pure communism. I PLAN on owning land. Land where I can build a house, raise my family and enjoy my life. I DON'T PLAN on living like those pours people in Russia did 20 or 30 years ago, 5 families cramped into one large house just because all land belonged to the government.I said I don't think ANYONE should own land. That includes governments. Anyway, this is off-topic. If you want to debate this, start another thread (preferably in the BCC forum).

quote:Watch Lebanon by Charles Krauthammer.That article proves my point (which was refined by Steve) that terrorism has nothing to do with the weapons used. Hezbollah used suicide attacks against US Marines and Israeli troops during the occupation of Lebanon. Now that they have their hands on military grade weapons (the 9000 rockets that they're firing on Northern Israel), their suicide attacks have stopped. quote:By the way Paddy Gregory, that's how the world evolves. Weaker die off, stronger survive.Our world evolves the way we let or make it evolve. This is not the Animal Kingdom, it's Human Civilization. We have consciousness and the ability to change the environment around us to suit our needs or wants. Unlike the animals, there is no concrete path for us. Animals are incapable of helping the weak unless it is an inherent instinct (i.e. when a mother protects its offspring), because they cannot consciously conceive it. Human beings are capable of recognizing the value of life even when it's supposedly weak. quote:I don't understand these socialistic/liberatarian concepts where the strong have to cater to the weak, making themselves weaker in the process.Wait fifty years and you'll probably recognize the hypocrisy in that statement. quote:Have you been to Israel? Have you seen what they have done with that land in 50 years they have lived there? It's an oasis in the desert. The arabs had that land for thousands of years and their countries are still a desert Yes, the Arabs have lived in a desert for thousands of years, survived, and flourished. That doesn't sound weak to me. quote:only because of the British you have derricks sticking out of that sand, (what you think they thought of how to pump oil all by themselves?)Ahh, so you define a civilization's worthiness by their ability to exploit resources. Sorry Soback, that doesn't mean squat. A civilization's ability to exploit large volumes of resources only indicates their level of dependence on such resources. quote:Israel was given the land it has now. The arab countries invaded it in hopes of destroying them, but Israel fought back and pushed the arabs back farther and farther, and now everyone is saying that Israel should give the land back to the arabs?I don't think that anyone should own land.