This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 267268269 270271 ... 502
8041
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:54:02 PM »
I'm not saying it's more important, just different.
One person was killed for his phone, the other for the color of his skin. One is a hate crime, one is fueled by greed.
I have no problem with that kind of distinction.
8042
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:52:55 PM »
I really doubt that the European Central Bank will ever do either. So we're fucked.
Well the ECB has recently announced quite a large round of quantitative easing, which is good news. It just remains to be seen if Syriza is sensible enough to commit itself to fiscal discipline, if not austerity, although I'm not holding my breath.
8043
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:48:31 PM »
The policies that the austerity involves are not to be ignored.
The point is that they could be if the European Central Bank actually got its act together--or, better yet, was abolished. Good monetary policy makes austerity literally irrelevant.
8044
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:47:11 PM »
Don't down play racism, and don't ignore motives.
I'm not. I'm saying it's morally reprehensible to say a black person being killed out of racism is qualitatively more important than a white person being killed for his phone.
8045
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:45:50 PM »
Yeah but the motivation as to why someone murdered or attacked a person is important.
A hate crime is just a step away from terrorism, after all.
Yeah, sure, but you aren't going to change that via the criminal justice system. Most of that has to come from education.
8046
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:44:51 PM »
and obvious solution for the damage caused by the austerity
Greeks have no problem with austerity; they have a problem with the European Central Bank. They just don't realise it.
8047
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:37:51 PM »
It's not my fault that some people are ignorant I never said it was; I'm saying it's your fault for being exceedingly arrogant about the fact that some people are ignorant. I could bang my head against the wall sometimes when I see people say retarded things about, say, economics but I'd never shut down a discussion over it. The actions of the Greek government are filled with plenty of corruption even during the time austerity plans were being implemented and the severe economical signs were shown on people. The distrust that this caused, and also the way the banks have been behaving according to the government's tune are contributing factors to the current, disastrous situation. Sure, I'm not denying any of that. But the point is that the Greek government was exceedingly profligate, through corruption or not, prior to the sovereign debt crisis and the austerity is a response to that--whether it's been marred by corruption or not. Hell, what little austerity Greece has seen was beginning to work, as the economy began to grow in 2014 Q2 and was the EZ's fastest growing economy in 2014 Q3. Of course, this all ignores one of the largest problems with the Greek economy, which is the Eurozone itself. Austerity, when looking at the monetary union, really does fall by the wayside in the damage it has done.
8048
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:28:21 PM »
>hate crimes
What a stupid concept.
Care to elaborate?
Crime is crime. The fact that a Negro was murdered by a Caucasian really isn't qualitatively dissimilar to a Caucasian being killed by a Caucasian.
8049
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:25:25 PM »
Yeah, tell that to the people whose homes, and jobs were taken due to the severe austerity measures.
If the Greek government weren't so profligate in the first instance, then the austerity measures wouldn't even be necessary. And that's still assuming any degree of proper austerity is being implemented, and it's assuming people are losing homes because of said austerity, as opposed to some other economic factor.
8050
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:22:49 PM »
Because this, and this or even this are all qualifying examples of what does and what doesn't belong in Serious.
If you have a point that is, y'know, actually relevant I'd be willing to hear it, but I don't really know what you're trying to drive at hear. There's a difference between a friendly off-hand comment within the context of a broader discussion, and then coming into a thread and declaring all those who disagree with you to be ignorant, and all those who criticise the Greeks to be hateful. Nonetheless, if those instances are examples of things which shouldn't be in Serious, I'm really at a loss regarding why you seem adamant on out-doing them. . .
8051
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:18:55 PM »
Also, yeah, austerity.
Greece as a deficit which is 12pc of GDP. If they're practicing austerity, it doesn't seem they're doing it very well.
8052
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:14:02 PM »
One thing is to provide proof to back an argument, and another to be witnessing stupidity spreading like wildfire. I don't feel like writing a long-winded explanation that the misconceptions of Greek socialism
Then you're utterly and totally complicit in the spreading of this stupidity, and you really ought to drop this 'holier-than-thou' attitude. It's infuriating when somebody patently unwilling to defend their position will nonetheless participate in a discussion only to defend their initial unwillingness and insult other users. If you're just going to do that, you don't belong in Serious.
8053
« on: January 27, 2015, 11:31:38 AM »
>hate crimes
What a stupid concept.
8054
« on: January 27, 2015, 11:28:18 AM »
There's no "counter" because the argument doesn't exist. Nor it is part of my beliefs to argue, or reason with a cave troll. You may proceed to spread your ignorant narrow-view hate-speech all over the place.
Jesus fucking Christ I hope you aren't serious.
8055
« on: January 27, 2015, 01:24:49 AM »
Democratic monetary policy?
I'm not even going there.
8056
« on: January 26, 2015, 05:33:49 PM »
You 'owight geezer?
I love you.
8057
« on: January 26, 2015, 04:25:09 PM »
Capitalism relies off the idea that people want to succeed. Well socialism isn't any different. People within a socialist economy will behave as they need to (rather than slacking off as capitalists claim) because they know that if they don't, the economy will come crashing down. The idea behind capitalism, and more fundamentally the market, isn't just that people will want to succeed. It's that those who have the capacity to succeed ought to be incentives and rewarded in such a way as to promote an economy which isn't a zero-sum game. I've never seen a socialist conception of the economy which is structured in such a way as to offer and provide what capitalism offers and provides.
8058
« on: January 26, 2015, 04:22:43 PM »
I will just not now
I didn't want to say this, but I think you're really quite ignorant here. And I'm sorry, I don't mean that to be offensive, I'm not trying to hurt you. But I literally think you lack a capacity to properly grasp what you're talking about. And that, of course, is okay. I don't know much about mathematics, physics, chemistry, philology, engineering and a whole host of other stuff. But I do know about politics, economics, philosophy and history. It's quite clear, however, that you don't. In such cases, it's best to admit one's ignorance and ask questions in order to learn. Not make defend an untenable position and make up excuses to postpone responsibility.
8059
« on: January 26, 2015, 04:13:54 PM »
i can't have 5 discussions at once
I can.
We aren't going to go easy on you because you can't handle it. That isn't how debates work, and you should be ready and willing to properly defend the ideas and values you espouse, especially when they're so radical and ahistorical.
i'm not trying to defend anything, i haven't given my personal view on a better alternative yet anyway, all i'm saying is that the current system is way to harsh to be sustained for as long as we want it
>isn't trying to defend anything
>puts forward a viewpoint
Yeah, buddy, you aren't defending a fucking thing at the moment.
alright look, i'l discuss this with you at a later time, without having 3 people gang up on me here. i'm talking to 2 many people and it's getting me confused
Or you could just talk to me and ignore Dustin and Joceph. It really, really isn't difficult. I'm still waiting for you to present any rationality or evidence for your case.
8060
« on: January 26, 2015, 04:09:31 PM »
i can't have 5 discussions at once
I can.
We aren't going to go easy on you because you can't handle it. That isn't how debates work, and you should be ready and willing to properly defend the ideas and values you espouse, especially when they're so radical and ahistorical.
i'm not trying to defend anything, i haven't given my personal view on a better alternative yet anyway, all i'm saying is that the current system is way to harsh to be sustained for as long as we want it
>isn't trying to defend anything >puts forward a viewpoint Yeah, buddy, you aren't defending a fucking thing at the moment.
8061
« on: January 26, 2015, 04:06:51 PM »
no these groups exist primarily as a product of US involvment since the 1950s.
That's just not true. Not only is it naive, but it's fundamentally masochistic to think the actions of people, who will hate you for not allowing them to commit genocide, are the direct product of your own actions. Not even considering that, however, what about the anti-Semitism rife among pre-1950s Palestine? What about the Barbary Pirates using the Qur'an as the justification for their actions in the early 1800s? Are you seriously going to try and tell me that such things are the result of U.S. (or any other Western country's involvement for that matter) actions? No. Of course you aren't.
8062
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:59:04 PM »
i can't have 5 discussions at once
I can. We aren't going to go easy on you because you can't handle it. That isn't how debates work, and you should be ready and willing to properly defend the ideas and values you espouse, especially when they're so radical and ahistorical.
8063
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:57:39 PM »
capitalism is fundamentally flawed, you'll see in the next 80 years that these countries will go down hill. Oh my God, the fear-mongering here is unbelievable. No, if something is fundamentally flawed, you'll see evidence of that. You'll be able to detail to me just why and how capitalist countries will begin to go downhill and you'll be able to point to analyses and statistics which say: "Look, we can see the beginning of this downtrend caused by fundamental issues within the capitalist structure itself". your not supposed to find corruption so i cant answer your question to be honest What the hell does "you're* not supposed to find corruption" mean? I'm asking about economic downturns and hardships--or any other form of significant lack of fortune--induced by capitalism. I'm giving you a much wider scope. Name me a specific crisis, hardship, downturn, problem or shit event caused by capitalism.
8064
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:49:38 PM »
if people would just actively listen
I've been doing that this entire time but when you come out with shit like Canada and France being socialist it's difficult to keep the effort up. Canada and France are not socialist. And your graph quite nicely displays a clear correlation between private, economic freedom and a lack of corruption and the development of wealth. When I said 'broadly capitalist', I didn't mean every country under the Sun which at some point had a nominally capitalist government; I assumed you had the nous to grasp that. Now, we can debate the extent to which certain countries are truly capitalist, but you still have all your work still ahead of you to explain the resilience of Australia, the success of Hong Kong and Estonia, the successful market reforms of China and countless other examples of capitalism working. But what your graph didn't do is answer my question, which was to do with you giving me a single instance in which capitalism has induced serious economic hardship within a country. Answer that question.
8065
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:41:33 PM »
it was a direct response to usa involvement
U.S. involvement in 1999? What the hell are you talking about, exactly? These groups exist, primarily, as a result of their religious beliefs. You can't claim things like the existence of ISIS, Saddam's harbouring of people like Abu Nidal or the rampant fundamentalism among the Arab--and even parts of the European--nations are a direct result of U.S. action. That's even more naive than the Bushite Neocons who claim we can set up democracies on a whim.
8066
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:38:41 PM »
socialist countries like france and canada
8067
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:28:59 PM »
who told you that?
I get understanding of a situation by looking at various sources of information; not from somebody's word. It was set up by a man named al-Zarqawi, who often took refuge in Iraq and took a leading role in the Insurgency post-2003.
8068
« on: January 26, 2015, 03:26:18 PM »
I can't because genuine capitalism has never occurred
Okay, broadly capitalist. I think we can safely define a fair few nations as sufficiently capitalist to warrant judgement; otherwise what the fuck is your criticism even based on? So, go ahead. Broadly or typically capitalist countries that have had significant socio-economic problems because of capitalism?
8069
« on: January 26, 2015, 02:57:42 PM »
I honestly have no idea. *shrugs*
lvl 99 mischief indeed
8070
« on: January 26, 2015, 02:35:42 PM »
 Speak, pheasant!
Pages: 1 ... 267268269 270271 ... 502
|
Show Posts