GoBills808 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Could you make more vague responses and then disappear into the fog of the internet? You should know since you responded that I was responding to a post that mentioned collectivism. Are you trying to say that collectivism has been implemented with success? That both the people and the government which were impacted by collectivism were happy with the results? That you yourself would be happy if the government came along and subtracted "Y" from your "X?" Even if you owned a 1500 square foot home and were paid 15 dollars per hour you would be happy if the government decided some less fortunate person needed half of your living area and that your employer should pay that person part of your salary? You could start by referencing a 'collectivist' doctrine that advocates someone earning more shares for less effort. Actually I'll spare you the time- you'll find it under the 'individualist' subsection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: You could start by referencing a 'collectivist' doctrine that advocates someone earning more shares for less effort. Actually I'll spare you the time- you'll find it under the 'individualist' subsection. We are all aware of the differences in terms of practice and print when it comes to policy. You are stalling. Would you be happy if someone received part of your assets without payment to you? That the same person performed no work and yet was compensated with some of your assets? Do you consider it fair that in certain portions of the world and at certain times people had assets taken away from them that they believed was earned in a fair manor? I am not interested in any political science drivel that you hunted up or were taught at college. Do you believe in the right for the government to collect and redistribute assets without compensation to the previous holders of those assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Logic said: Weird. Here I was under the impression that MANY of the freedoms we enjoy today came as a result of revolutions, rebellions, and strikes, put together most often by what you'd refer to as "collectivists". I guess revolutionaries all over the world should just quit trying to work towards a better, more equitable world, since their efforts have historically never achieved anything whatsoever. Besides, it's quite clear that modern, late stage capitalist, materialism-worshipping America is doing just fine in all respects and doesn't require any change anyway. Our American individualism is working ESPECIALLY well as it relates to COVID-19. How many of our freedoms have come from proletariat revolutions? What at I find absolutely hysterically funny is that you appear to espouse freedom in your first paragraph. It only took you until the third to let your true feelings about individualism be known. So we should be collectively free? How does that work? Your desired form of government doesn't work and it won't start working just because you think you're smarter than everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: We are all aware of the differences in terms of practice and print when it comes to policy. You are stalling. Would you be happy if someone received part of your assets without payment to you? That the same person performed no work and yet was compensated with some of your assets? Do you consider it fair that in certain portions of the world and at certain times people had assets taken away from them that they believed was earned in a fair manor? I am not interested in any political science drivel that you hunted up or were taught at college. Do you believe in the right for the government to collect and redistribute assets without compensation to the previous holders of those assets? Are you under the impression that right now, at this very moment, other members of this society aren't benefitting from your assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 35 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: I thought we were having meaningful discussion on social-political experiments. Why retract your comment about righty's? You're right about both "societies" being quite a ways removed from being perfect. What do you envision happening on righty island over the span of a few years? I edited my statement because I realized that I, too, was contributing to changing the subject from what the OP intended, by shifting the conversation from violence in revolutions to "left vs right". I'm trying to make a more concerted effort these days not to hijack threads and have them go off in directions unrelated to the OP's intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said: Why do people who wanted peace and to end the war machine and the war economy have to be the evil socialist or God forbid a dam communist. Why can you deal with them as citizens. I was not a commie pinkos like Meathead Stivic. Why do people sho just want our society to treat all people equally have to labeled like that. Cannot you believe in MAGA and also be in favor of a just society. Red hair ring. The leaders of many parts of this current turmoil are avowed Marxists. Who is against a just society where people are equal?. Those are pillars of our founding. Being against collectivism does not mean one is against justice. I am against communists/socialists/anarchists/collectivists seizing the exclusive license to define injustice and develop solutions. That road leads to millions of dead and subservient paupers as survivors. It always has. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: How many of our freedoms have come from proletariat revolutions? What at I find absolutely hysterically funny is that you appear to espouse freedom in your first paragraph. It only took you until the third to let your true feelings about individualism be known. So we should be collectively free? How does that work? Your desired form of government doesn't work and it won't start working just because you think you're smarter than everyone else. Your hostility toward others and your desire to take this discussion in a completely different direction than the one intended by the OP are bizarre. This thread is about the impact of violence on revolutionary movements, and you want to come in here talking about socialism and "my desired form of government"? As if you even KNOW what my desired form of government is, or as if it has ANY impact on what was originally being discussed? If you want to talk about the comparative merits of direct action vs peaceful protest, or of the impact of violence on revolutions, I'm all for it. If you want to continue down the path of condescension, arrogance, rudeness, and completely changing the subject to what YOU want to talk about, I'm out. Good day to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: You could start by referencing a 'collectivist' doctrine that advocates someone earning more shares for less effort. Actually I'll spare you the time- you'll find it under the 'individualist' subsection. From each....to each...ring any bells? Edited June 21, 2020 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Are you under the impression that right now, at this very moment, other members of this society aren't benefitting from your assets? Un-entitled members? No. Just me and the wife in my house. No forced tenants. Just me and the wife on the checking account with no other access allowed. Who do you think is benefitting that should not? Taxes paid to the government is outside that. I know that when I earn money that the government gets a portion of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Just now, RochesterRob said: Un-entitled members? No. Just me and the wife in my house. No forced tenants. Just me and the wife on the checking account with no other access allowed. Who do you think is benefitting that should not? Taxes paid to the government is outside that. I know that when I earn money that the government gets a portion of it. And what do you suppose the government does with your portion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Logic said: I edited my statement because I realized that I, too, was contributing to changing the subject from what the OP intended, by shifting the conversation from violence in revolutions to "left vs right". I'm trying to make a more concerted effort these days not to hijack threads and have them go off in directions unrelated to the OP's intent. I can appreciate that but I also appreciate your views even though our politics do no align. I consider it a loss for all here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: From each....to each...ring any bells? Moreso than you. It's in reference to need, not whatever effort/reward equation you think you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Just now, Logic said: Your hostility toward others and your desire to take this discussion in a completely different direction than the one intended by the OP are bizarre. This thread is about the impact of violence on revolutionary movements, and you want to come in here talking about socialism and "my desired form of government"? As if you even KNOW what my desired form of government is, or as if it has ANY impact on what was originally being discussed? If you want to talk about the comparative merits of direct action vs peaceful protest, or of the impact of violence on revolutions, I'm all for it. If you want to continue down the path of condescension, arrogance, rudeness, and completely changing the subject to what YOU want to talk about, I'm out. Good day to you. I read four words. My response: I have no hostilities towards others. None. Zero. I do have hostility toward bad ideas. I've shown hostility only toward ideas. I haven't judged you or the other folks with the bad ideas. Only the ideas. You've decided to take the opposite approach. Whatever. I'm guessing the rest of your post is based off this false premise. If so it is worthless. I'll read it now but probably won't comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Just now, GoBills808 said: And what do you suppose the government does with your portion? Why even feed into the hijacking of this thread by people who clearly have no interest in discussing its original subject? Why facilitate and acquiesce to the apparent desire to re-direct a perfectly reasonable and worthy conversation toward subjects which have very little --if anything at all-- to do with what was originally being discussed? Collectivism vs Individualism is a completely different topic than "the impact of violence on revolutions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: Moreso than you. It's in reference to need, not whatever effort/reward equation you think you understand. Who defines the need of an individual? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 Just now, 4merper4mer said: I read four words. My response: I have no hostilities towards others. None. Zero. I do have hostility toward bad ideas. I've shown hostility only toward ideas. I haven't judged you or the other folks with the bad ideas. Only the ideas. You've decided to take the opposite approach. Whatever. I'm guessing the rest of your post is based off this false premise. If so it is worthless. I'll read it now but probably won't comment. Refusing to read someone's response to you, insisting on replying to it anyway, then indicating you won't respond to any further replies to you, either. Yep, certainly SEEMS like reasonable, mature, non-hostile discourse. Feel free to @ me if you want to discuss the original topic at any point, rather than continuing to stubbornly insert your own topic of choice and respond dismissively to anyone who dares to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Who defines the need of an individual? Who defines it now? It's a construct of income, housing, health and numerous other factors available for public consumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, Logic said: Refusing to read someone's response to you, insisting on replying to it anyway, then indicating you won't respond to any further replies to you, either. Yep, certainly SEEMS like reasonable, mature, non-hostile discourse. Feel free to @ me if you want to discuss the original topic at any point, rather than continuing to stubbornly insert your own topic of choice and respond dismissively to anyone who dares to disagree. The first four words of your post were egregiously incorrect and did exactly what you accused me of doing. I hadn't shown malice toward anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: The first four words of your post were egregiously incorrect and did exactly what you accused me of doing. I hadn't shown malice toward anyone. Accusing me of "thinking I'm smarter than everyone else" certainly feels like malice. It also seems like the pot calling the kettle black. Alas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 21, 2020 Share Posted June 21, 2020 21 minutes ago, Logic said: Why even feed into the hijacking of this thread by people who clearly have no interest in discussing its original subject? Why facilitate and acquiesce to the apparent desire to re-direct a perfectly reasonable and worthy conversation toward subjects which have very little --if anything at all-- to do with what was originally being discussed? Collectivism vs Individualism is a completely different topic than "the impact of violence on revolutions". I can’t pass up the opportunity to interact with someone online who feels compelled to mention they attended Cornell. That’s blood in the water. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts