RE: Socialism

RE: Socialism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 11:52:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Sure, it's mean; but I'm bashing people for being lazy and unproductive Actually, what you are doing is arbitrarily declaring entire groups of people are "lazy and unproductive" because their choices do not validate yours.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 11:54:32 AM)
No, you're just misreading me. When I list things, like "Arts majors, socialists, pot smokers", etc.. you think I'm getting anyone who falls into any one of those catigories. I'm actually referring to people who are the combination. And I'm further expecting you to narrow it down with context. Again, this is one of those reading skills I've come to expect from my peers. They apparently do not translate here.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 11:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord PS- So there's no more misunderstanding.. even when above, when I said "I'm talking about Arts majors". I don't mean, "I'm talking abou all Arts majors". I mean "I'm talking about some Arts majors". There's a specific sort of person I'm ranting about. Please disregard my previous response, now that you've cleared up you are only ranting about your roomies and not "Socialism". quote: I keep relying on context for that to be picked up to avoid the tedium of having to specifically define it, but it's becoming apparent that my approach to communcation here is flawed. May I recommend an Art Major? They are very good at communication, I hear.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 11:59:01 AM)
More scientific courses of study have assisted me in communicating with those who I'll be associating with in the future as coworkers. If I were to take up an artistic dictum, I'd not be able to even understand many scientific concepts.

Aswad -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 11:59:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Perhaps the biggest issue with the OP is that I wasn't straightfoward in saying that. (I'd strongly defend that someone should've been able to tell, but I suppose the empiracle data would be against me on that one.) I got what you were getting at, straight from the first post, or so I think. I also saw the flaws in the presentation, and that you did, too, so I ignored those; they weren't relevant. Frame of reference thing. Like with the "Language: The Human Condition" thread. Context is applied in interpreting what is said, so the thing is that the edges of the concepts you are trying to serialize into words will be padded out to fit whatever frame of reference exists and leftover context from the previous thought. Since most of the readers will never be in the same mindspace as a post was written in, one will see divergent interpretations. And since most readers are uninclined to assume the best, that means anything that isn't intended to generate vigorous nodding and standing ovations will need a bunch of scaffolding in order for the communication to succeed. Also, google "affective threshold" at some point. It's relevant in terms of having people listen. Corrections by replying to replies will tend to suffer from the same problem as a frog on a heat plate (or negotiations): a threshold is never reached, because the increments are too small. And, yes, correcting the most glaring errors in the presentation- early on- would have led to more productive debate. [;)] Health, al-Aswad.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:00:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed So you lump Art Majors, hippies, pot-smokers, murderers and child molesters all together to show how much you hate the idea that "everything is all the same"? Sure. And scientists, engineers, teachers, politicans, etc. We're all people. But we're not all the same. I went with the negative things before the positives because, even though I'm right, I had to make you want to agree with me. People believe in selfish things, after all. If I said artists and scientists were different, wouldn't people who like artists be inclined to say, "How? That's not true!" But since I said artists and murders are different, you'll readily agree with me. Not that both points aren't true, but you're less likely to agrue with the latter, correct? ::smile:: CL, it isn't necessary to use such debating tactics.

NorthernGent -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Socialism embraces hierarchy, albeit as a stepping stone towards Communism. Only according to Marxist theory, which has been rejected by just about everyone, first and foremost rejected by the liberal socialists of the west. As Socialism demands state management of the economy, it's fair to say hierarchy exists in a socialist state. Liberal socialists? A contradiction in terms if ever I heard one. It goes without saying, however, in the event Liberalism and Socialism have evolved into something entirely beyond my understanding, feel free to enlighten me. quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed And am I confused or doesn't capitalist corporate America also embrace hierarchy as part of the oligarchic government structure they've imposed through their political contributions? CEO? CFO? President, Vice-President, etc...? Yes, you're confused: Socialism, rather than Capitalism, is the topic at hand.

kittinSol -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:06:37 PM)
We have yet to send the little lord to charm school :-) .

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:10:19 PM)
The ironic part is that I'm probably the one who who has been to such an institution. At least between the two of us. ;)

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:10:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm not against fun. I'm just against having fun at everything when it's not productive. Such as when you spend all of your time drawing trees in parks when you could be learning to do anything from farming to teaching to medical care. You are taking what you see today and projecting it into the future unchanged. Life doesn't work like that. quote: Also, I'm not going to blame "the governments" for everything. Everyone who could do something but doesn't is complicit. The governments aren't innocent, but they're also not someone I'm going to accept you pointing to as the sole guilty party. And who do you think is responsible for economic and foreign policy, which significantly affect those who are starving? Corporations could be taxed to help pay for the starving, but that would be "Socialism" and we can't have that. Indeed, worrying about the poor and the starving is a very "socialist" attitude, CL. The only thing a capitalist would think is "how can I profit from this?"

kittinSol -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:11:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The ironic part is that I'm probably the one who who has been to such an institution. At least between the two of us. ;) It would be ironic: did you waste your time smoking dope during your stay :-) ?

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:15:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord More scientific courses of study have assisted me in communicating with those who I'll be associating with in the future as coworkers. If I were to take up an artistic dictum, I'd not be able to even understand many scientific concepts. Three names: Carl Sagan Stephen Jay Gould Stephen Hawking

philosophy -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:15:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I keep relying on context for that to be picked up to avoid the tedium of having to specifically define it, but it's becoming apparent that my approach to communcation here is flawed. ...yup, and i say that with all due respect. The thing about a written medium of communication is that, in order to be understood, you need to emply precision in the words you use. In the past i have been sloppy on these fora and have been picked up for it. You see, it's the communicators responsibility to be understood......it is not our job to try and figure out what you really mean......especially when what you really mean isn't what's defined by the words you use. You're clearly a bright man, in your field at least, and i can see how you'd get annoyed at wasters in whatever field they study. However, what you have communicated in this thread, by the words you have used, is nothing to do with wasters......you just come across as a bit of a maths nazi bashing the arts students.....and that's nobodys responsibility but yours.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:16:09 PM)
I'm not throwing life together; I'm just recognizing that they're not helping (or preparing to help) now, even though they could be. It's true that they could change later. The thing I dislike about the words "capitalist" and "socialist" is that they're so extreme, so they're typically used in a very general sense. Such as, largely, I'm a capitalist; I support the capitalist system and tend to agree with its tenants. However, I just like aspects of how it works, particularly compared to socialism. But I'm also for some more socialist ideas, such as basic provisions for all children, everything from food to shelter to education to healthcare. A large part of this divergence is that I do not see children as the property of their parents; they may be individuals who have nothing, but not by their own fault. My capitalistic concerns stem from an acknowledgement of reality. My socialist concerns stem from my idealism. The latter's a novelity; humanity would get along just fine in a pure capitalism. It just wouldn't be my ideal. Humanity would die off in a purely socialist enviroment. Some compromise of the two strikes me as ideal.

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:18:35 PM)
I guess you're never too old to try to be cute. =/

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:19:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord More scientific courses of study have assisted me in communicating with those who I'll be associating with in the future as coworkers. If I were to take up an artistic dictum, I'd not be able to even understand many scientific concepts. Three names: Carl Sagan Stephen Jay Gould Stephen Hawking Could you explain? I know Hawking's exceptionally well versed in speaking to the masses, but that's only relative to others in his field and it's not in earnest.

philosophy -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:20:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord More scientific courses of study have assisted me in communicating with those who I'll be associating with in the future as coworkers. If I were to take up an artistic dictum, I'd not be able to even understand many scientific concepts. ....a perfect example of the misuse of words i have alluded to earlier. Now, did you really mean that arts students are incapable of understanding scientific or mathematical concepts? 'Cos that's clearly untrue. Now, a dedicated arts student may not be as good at maths as a maths student, but isn't there a corollary there? Maybe those arts students have a skill you don't have to the same degree. i'm not saying that all maths students suck at communication skills because that would be a sweeping generalisation.......rather like you suggesting that arts students are incapable of understanding mathematical concepts.

Loveisallyouneed -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:26:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Loveisallyouneed Only according to Marxist theory, which has been rejected by just about everyone, first and foremost rejected by the liberal socialists of the west. As Socialism demands state management of the economy, it's fair to say hierarchy exists in a socialist state. My apologies for the confusion. I was referring to the belief that Socialism is a stepping stone to Communism. quote: Liberal socialists? A contradiction in terms if ever I heard one. It goes without saying, however, in the event Liberalism and Socialism have evolved into something entirely beyond my understanding, feel free to enlighten me. Canada has been ruled by the Liberal Party of Canada for most of its history. The Liberals are "liberal socialists" who attempt to strike a balance between Socialism and Capitalism that is left of centre (they'd argue that, but it is true nonetheless). For the record, even a capitalist nation such as America believes in state management of the economy (interest rates are set by a government appointee, laws governing economic interests such as pollution control, etc are determined by the government, etc).

CuriousLord -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:34:02 PM)
I appreciate the prospective. I'm suggesting that there's a lot of mathematical and scientific concepts that are very high minded, and that if I were to stop working towards my studies of them for a while to pursue other sorts of things.. such as art.. while I may be able to resume them later, I'll not get as far as if I hadn't paused from them. There's no apparent limit to the amount of knowledge that's possible, in human terms, before mortality takes us. So if I want to get far, I have to use the time most productively.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Socialism (2/15/2008 12:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Perhaps you might pause to consider giving a man the same benefit of the doubt that you would give a woman? The differences between Lashra and CuriousLord go much deeper than gender. I think the person who is blinded by the chromosomes in this situation is you.

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02