New Debate :Israel vs Palestine/Arab States

[Lotharr]

Well business as usual hasn't gotten us too far....since I can't endorse genocide (although speed and permanency are key motivating factors to the lazy) perhaps we might consider looking to more unorthodox solutions.....uh with the proper amount of morality injected of course....

Maybe we could just embargo both sides and make them sell the guns and farm together....poor hungry people tend to focus at the task at hand....then we could subsidize with farming equipment and do gooder hippie types that are still disenfranchised with the government could flock to the cause....to keep the militarist faction of the country happy we could take all confiscated gear and give it to the NRA....ever seen a tank hunt a duck? And the money makers would be happy either way cause the money is a' movin....

No but seriously looking for idea's that don't lead to a bunch of filled body bags is about the best way to use a forum like this....well that’s just me.

LONG LIVE THE FIGHTERS (fighting to think hard)!!!

(Paul Atradies___Duke House Atradies) sp?

[Menchise]

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.

[Lotharr]

I am intrigued by a notion of human nature out side the box of the basics. Eat, sleep, procreate etc.

As far as I can determine the need to be safe is key above many others. Domination tends to lead to feelings of control and safety. But since we can imagine a soul (a deeper expression of self)....do we have to struggle for spiritual dominance as well? In order to be immortally safe. Does this lead to Jihad? When spiritual righteousness clashes with quantifiable economic inequities? Clumsy oversimplification of a human. You bet.

There is no higher authority source than god eh?

Well I'll see you girls and boys in college I'm out of my depth here.

[Guest]

Lothar,

First off, thank you for your service, I spent 4 years in the US Army as a 31V10, yes, I just dated myself. Oh well.

When I was based in Turkey, I went on a trip to Israel, as soon as the Palestinians realized that US soldiers were on the bus we were in, lord knows how they found out. They threw rocks and broke EVERY SINGLE one of the windows out of it and tried to board the bus. The driver actually stopped and was going to open the door, The Israeli tour guide pulled the guy out of the driver seat and punched the gas to the floor to get us out of there.

To say it was frightening is an understatement, to say that it pissed me off that these animals would attack me when I had done NOTHING to them, is also an understatement, IT REALLY pissed me off. I wanted to get back, grab my m-16 and other asundry equipment and tear these animals new ones.

I will always back Israel, the Palestinians are animals, pure and simple. If they wish to be treated like a civilized society, then they better start acting civilized.

Powell with his meetings with a known 30 year terrorist, just pisses me off even more.

Bottom line: Terrorists are not to be dealt with, they are to be destroyed, whenever and wherever they pop up thier little sick heads. This includes "palestinian" terrorists and those that support them.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

make no mistake about it...this is a war.

---

Well if war is an extension of politics then what is anyone trying to accomplish...in the end? Seems more a give and take of pain to me. No real goals. Nothing that can be achieved with this war.

quote:

---

It is now the duty and responsibility of the Israeli Military and Government, to neutralize the threat to Israel. And if that means killing every single person of Palestinian blood, so be it.That's their JOB....To neutralize threats to the Israeli people.And if you, as a political entity show that you are going to use your citizenry as weapon delivery platforms. so be it.they must be neutralized........pretty simple actually.....at least from a military point of view

---

Ok you lose me here. You are trying to tell me that because some groups that have ties to the Palestinian "government" use suicide bombers....now any Palestinian is a free target. Ok so you are trying to rationalize genocide...in my opinion. Very strange times indeed....I wonder if any Israelis would agree with this kind of final solution? Of all people in this world I hope they would never try to rationalize this....I don't think they could. No one can.

quote:

---

As for the Palestinians, if they continue to let the Hard-liners call the shot's and put them on the firing line. Let them go...let them Vanish from the face of the Earth,because the gene pool could certainly do with out their nonsense. If they want to go be with Allah through the great Jihad,Then by all means let's speed them on their way. For them it's an internal problem. but also pretty simple, get some new, more moderate leadership, behave like civilized folks, or face annihilation. Why does everybody insist we coddle these FU%^in' people?

---

Now your talking about gene pools....I would tread lightly myself...

However, I have never indorsed the Palestinian "government". The "government" doesn't really seem anything more then a bunch of groups bent on killing. Could any leader work in this environment? These people are coddled because they are people caught in a truly catastrophic situation and suffer greatly. as are the israelis . As people who believe in good and are charged with leading a free world we realize that compassion is a corner stone of any philosophy that claims to be moral. I hope.

quote:

---

The Israelis have been much more tolerant than they needed to be.MUCH more tolerant than the U.S. would've been.( as evidenced by this past year ) Why does everybody think we should DO ANYTHING...It's not our business. Let the Israelis defend their country, and let the Palestinians learn the error of their ways or fade into history.

---

But we have been tolerant. I walk through offices every day that have the entire region to the east of Israel labeled "Toast" on cute little pin up pictures. While you and others might think that ÔÇ£toast landÔÇØ is just what this world needs...myself and others would disagree. Operation Anaconda was very precise as was the whole Afghanistan operation and I applaud the very focused limited effort as a sign that we can learn from the past.

Jaguar:

I am sorry that you experienced what you did on the bus that day. You seem to be taking it very personally. Well so do people who are on the other end of American made weapons. I am not trying to say who is right and who is wrong. I donÔÇÖt have all the facts and neither do you. I am prepared to say that a war on terror will never be over for us as a people until we realize that we are the newbs on this block and more goes into solving this problem then ÔÇ£kill em all and let Allah sort emÔÇÖ outÔÇØ.

Basically I just feel disappointed with you or any person that could dehumanize anyone to the point of calling them an animal and recommend for extermination. To me it shows how far we still have to go and how little we have learned from the sacrifice of the many before.....and (just from having to write this) how many are to come.

[ 04-16-2002, 23:13: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[aramike]

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.

---

Now that, ladies and gents, is an awesome counter-point.

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.

Human nature bites again.

[Menchise]

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.

[aramike]

quote:

---

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.

---

Just in case you haven't heard, excess money isn't a necessity for most of us.

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.

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.

quote:

---

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??!!

---

You mean, humans are allergic to hurting one another? 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.

[Lotharr]

aramike, there is documentation supporting the notion, that humans like many other species, try to avoid violence within the species.....

quote:

---

You mean, humans are allergic to hurting one another? 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.

---

Recommend you read "On Killing" by Lt. Col . Dave Grossman.

It is extremely interesting.

[Menchise]

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.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I have supported my argument with a real world example that neither you, Jaguar, or $iLk has invalidated, so drop the fantasy talk.

---

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?

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. 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.

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? 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.

Not everyone is the same. If we were the same, I'd be fantasizing along with you about the great Marxist Utopia.

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.

What fraction of the people of Earth would you expect to go happily along after being "liberated"?

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?

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.

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?

[Menchise]

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.

[Ryan Eversole]

quote:

---

I have supported my argument with a real world example that neither you, Jaguar, or $iLk has invalidated, so drop the fantasy talk.

---

Uhhh WRONG !!

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.

let the button-pushers be hooded....completely anonymous.

Now tell them that the people on the other ends of those wires are:

The guy looking at their child with lust.

The guy who cut them off in traffic that day.

The gal who slept with her husband.

The gal who called her a slut.

The guy who stole his new DVD player.

The guy who fired him.

The neighbor that won't turn that music down.

ETC. ETC.

and watch the buttons start flying......It'll sound like a bunch of typewriters in there.

This experiment is NOT the empirical evidence that you believe it is or that you would have US believe it is.

Now let us look at some REAL,REAL WORLD examples.

Crucifiction.

Impalement.

The Roman games in the Coliseum.

The genocide of peoples by Ghengis Khan.

The Inquisition.

The Crusades.

The treatment of the Scots by the English.

Trench Warfare.

Chemical warfare.

Dachau.

Auschwitz.

Slavery.

The treatment of African Americans in the south after slavery was outlawed.

The treatment of the Nisei during WWII.

Hiroshima.

Nagasaki.

Tieneman Square.(SP?)

Africa (can't even begin to list these ongoing atrocities).

Salem Witch Trials.

Sept 11th.

and so on.

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.

[ 04-17-2002, 04:20: Message edited by: Stormshadow ]

[Guest $iLk]

Good post Stormshadow, the same point I'm trying to get across except I get long winded and stuck replying 'inside' Menchise's post.

Menchise, how would Socialism cure those problems?

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. Socialism just doesn't work.

Capitalism just keeps working and growing. People who imagine some unfairness in life by not being one of the achievers are filled with... envy.

Plain and simple. If they feel they are being treated unfairly, the first thing for them to do would be to look at how hard they have tried as opposed to others.

It's all imagined, and who better to get caught up in the flights of fantasy of imagined injustice than socialist "intellectuals"?

[Ryan Eversole]

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.

---

AHH $ilk ,my friend, This is your error. You cannot reply to his posts effectively by remaining "inside" his circle of logic.

This philosophy focuses the adherents attentions inward on the Words, Ideals and Ideas that form the foundation of socialism.The problem with this is that this foundation is based on suppositions that are outside the realm of probability.

Socialism is like some beautiful, fragile, crystalline structure formed in the weightless vacuum of pure thought. As long as it remains there it is like shining beacon to it's followers....however, It is also doomed to remain there because once subjected to the tempestuous environment of the Human Socio-Dynamic it is quickly shattered and it's pieces scattered in the maelstrom.

The logic is flawed because it refuses to look outward and make a truthful and accurate assesment of True Human Nature and Social Interaction.

At our current stage of Human social evolution I would even say that socialism is even outside the realm of POSSIBILITY.

all of this is obvious without even taking into consideration the actions of these "Plutocrats" and all of those "have" kinda folk. Who are not just going to roll over and give the "have nots" all their shit.

But you know,.....maybe I'm wrong. Maybe in the year 2010 IF all the Stars in the Universe are in perfect alignment, AND it's the 6th Tuesday in February, AND we can get every Human on the planet to stand on one leg and stick their right Index finger in their left nostril.........Then MAYBE,We got like a 50/50 Chance of making this Socialism thing work.

[Menchise]

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.

[Menchise]

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

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

capitalism is in crisis, and it will only get worse.

---

We shall see. Capitalism is more resistant to failure than Socialism.

What if the Socialist uprising took place exactly as you foresaw, but the amount of people it took to produce the "need" of the many was greater than you anticipated. No currency, and need (i.e. food, water, shelter) was hard enough to come by. Recreation was simply not possible, so people look to other ways to recreate, i.e. sex, drugs, and the like.

Eventually socialism would find itself the victim of corruption, and moral degradation. People wouldn't care about producing, they'd just like to go to work and laze around just so they get "their 8 hours in". Human nature revolves around the central idea of self-preservation, and maintaining what each individual deems an acceptable lifestyle. Boredom itself would consume a socialist state, simply because people naturally compete, just like every other creature on the planet.

There are many factors which weigh against a socialist state, namely common sense, which evades many "revolutionary" minds. You want the revolution to happen so bad that you ignore any factors which prove that it will inevitably fail. I'm sure the people and Lenin had some forewarning that their experiment would fail, however they ignored it in favor of the "idea".

How sad.

[Commander Elio Jason]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Bottom line: Terrorists are not to be dealt with, they are to be destroyed, whenever and wherever they pop up thier little sick heads. This includes "palestinian" terrorists and those that support them.

---

Jaguar, iagree with all the ponits ysaid and agree completely.

but i want to say this again. WE CAN'T TRULY WIPE OUT TERRORISM. that can only happen if we make sure the schools teaching supposedly future terrorists stop their methods. children learn easily and when they are taught false things and terrorism they can definetly become a threat at that age or when they get older.

make no doubts about it, terrorism must be wiped out but we can't eradicate it completely unless people stop with the issues in the PAST and look to what's happening in the present.

as to the capitalism vs socialism subject, GROW UP AND DEBATE IT IN A DIFFERENT THREAD.

this is about whats going on in the Middleeast NOT aobut certain governmental things.

[aramike]

quote:

---

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.

---

To have money is to survive in capitalism. To have excessive money is to excel in capitalism.

If humans are animals who "allergically" react to violent actions in the immediately, I'm pretty blamed sure that they're not thinking about their long term portfolio.

quote:

---

I know that. It's called demand. So what's your point?

---

Why don't you read the entire thing in context and try to figure out the point yourself, when it is as CLEAR AS DAY.

But, considering you need your hand held, the point is that humans cannot be lumped into pacifistic categories; that human nature is a diverse one.

quote:

---

And now you contradict your previous posts that attempted to lump all of humanity into the Aggressive n' Greedy category.

---

Why don't you show me where I did that instead of making unbased assertions?

And where the heck is that economic breakdown you SAID you'd provide? Finding it a little thin?

quote:

---

The experiment speaks for itself.

---

Ah yes, that single experiment. I'll just ignore the millions of violent criminals locked away and focus on your ten people.

quote:

---

I have supported my argument with a real world example that neither you, Jaguar, or $iLk has invalidated, so drop the fantasy talk.

---

You mean, a singular example? It's invalidated because we REQUIRE prisons to house violent criminals.

It's invalidated because we REQUIRE weapons to defend against others.

It's invalidated because we REQUIRE armies to keep our nations safe from opportunistic leaders.

It's invalidated because, throughout human history, self-interest has governed all society.

That little fantasy world of yours is getting a tad large. Perhaps you should stop citing experiments of ten people and use some real world applications.

Did you ever think that the participants in your experiment reacted in such a way because it was not of their OWN initiative?

quote:

---

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.

---

And what would allow a person to order another person to harm someone? More human nature for your weak arguements to contend with.

quote:

---

Don't be so sure. People have harmed themselves in many ways simply because an authority figure suggested it. Cult suicides are one example.

---

Which is true. But that also detracts from your theory. First, there is someone giving the orders. I assume that person is human. Secondly, cult suicides and similar activities occur not because of the person giving the order, but because of the benefit the people see to FOLLOWING the order.

Yet again we run into self-interest.

quote:

---

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.

---

All of this has been invalidated by my first post on this page of the thread. You know, the one that basically ripped apart your theory on socialism and how it would be impossible; the one you ignored oddly enough.

Stormshadow: AWESOME post.

quote:

---

How exact do you want me to be?

---

You could start by addressing and not ignoring the economic invalidations I pointed out in my first post on this page.

quote:

---

It would not win because nobody would work there.

---

That was a rather lame response. By the definition of the question, 1/3 of the world would work there.

quote:

---

History only proves that such acts exist. It does not prove that they are acts of human nature.

---

By the fact that they repeat themselves over and over by COMPLETELY different and unique individuals, they PROVE that it is in the nature of a human being to be violent when self-interest calls for it.

[Lotharr]

LAST POST

Any one that thinks we live in a pure capitalism is wrong. I don't have to cite the examples because they are everywhere.

Anyone that thinks that only one philosophy is correct is also probably wrong. Philosophies are as varied as people and we pick and choose as we go.

Anyone who thinks this thread should stay on topic is in trouble because this issue is so complex entire careers are bent on trying to understand them. Issues are related.

Anyone who thinks they have the one correct answer is arrogant and will probably be ignored in the end.

Recommend you try understanding other peoples position and how it can strengthen or change your own.

Everything changes...everything....and so should your opinion....there is wisdom in this and I hope you can see it.

[Eclipse]

quote:

---

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.

---

Menchise, What exactaly IS this "evil authority" Is it those over you? Employers? religious? or perhaps government? It really does not matter who they are or what they are called. They are still made up of the same thing: people. Yes your "evil" authority is made up of those wonderful beings incapable of causing anothers harm we call Homo Sapians.

Now that we have defined WHO and WHAT the authority is made of what causes them to issue these orders? Are there simply a few "misguided" humans who blindly follow the rules demamded by the authority? Even if you answer yes it still leaves the question of WHERE did those "evil" regulations come from. Did they just appear out of the blue? No, HUMANS made those regulations and rules that your "evil" authority promotes. And if the source of this evil is humanity, then it follows that humanity is by nature evil. If this is the case, and history shows that it is, then socilaism can NEVER WORK.

[goaliejerry]

Look I'm not an advocate of socialism in any way, however, aramike, your point you attempt to make here misses the mark.

Your Quote:

"Why? Here's a hypothetical to chew on: You're the hardest socialist worker ever. You gain vast goods due to your markings on the Effort Guage. You have children. They retain those goods. They produce additional goods. They have surplus of goods. They trade unnecessary surplus goods for other goods they want.

Trade. That's a capitalistic society with a false socialist pretense.

Now, you can say that you wouldn't trade any goods or your children wouldn't, either. But I would. $ilk would. Jaguar would. I would give a good doctor my spare vacation rations for exceptional medical services while you're stuck going to whatever doctor will take you. OK, that won't work. We can vote against practices like that. But WAIT!!! We've gotten rid of any authority to enforce it because we've decided people in power are baaaaaaad.

So we all end up trading, and those with more initial effort end up aquiring loads of goods. Now their children don't have to work as hard because of inheretence.

In the end, you have your glim prospect of capitalism. Whereas right now, we have a society which allows EVERYONE to attempt to aquire wealth through initial investment, then everyone who succeeds can take a ride on easy street.

Either way, it's the same thing. "

Your missunderstanding of socialist ideals stands out here. People with excess goods wouldn't trade them away, there would BE NO excess, for anything over what you needed would be given to the "collective" as the term has been used. If you had extra anything you'd give it to whoever needed it. So the theroy goes.

Now I don't believe that human nature would allow this system to work, 'cause there would always be people like you who would hoard goods and be selfish.

Also your claim that effort cannot be measured is sheer non-sense trying to be passed off as a brilliant realization. Effort, or Input, is measured in Output, silly. If someone works hard, they get more done. You try to use the claim that effort is immesurable, however every time you use it is another time you shoot yourself in the foot.

[aramike]