 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Ain't Socialism grand?... |
|
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Michael Gordge... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 6:24 pm, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
ho... at (no spam) yahoo.co> wrote:
[quote]ALso BTW UK not a socilaist country.
[/quote]
Hahhaha, yeah right.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 1Z... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 6 Nov, 05:17, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 12:09 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
On Nov 5, 7:53 am, "Andy F." <never.m... at (no spam) tesco.net> wrote:
"turtoni" <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:hcqq5o$61c$1 at (no spam) aioe.org...
Here's what you'll live in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Street_of_terraced_housing.jpg
It's so much better under capitalism.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Union-City_NJ_07087_....
Anyway the point is that it's typical to own a terraced house in the
UK.
In the USA is typical to own a completely detached house (outside of
the cities).
[/quote]
Even in NYC?
Why have I been in semi-detached's most of my life?
If terracing is casued by "socialism", howcome so many terraces
predate the first labour government?
Does population density have nothing to do with it? Is the fact that
many Japanese live in small apartments also
caused by "socialism"? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 8:42 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:25 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You have no interest in
debate or discourse,
If you had any interest or desire to debate or have discourse then you
would not bother with the above off topic crap and instead you would
have taken the opportunity I offered you to explain how something that
does not exist ("next week") can be used to validate fact and truth.
MG
[/quote]
OK I will try again.
Please explain what I wrote that gives you this impression.
Not that I am against using the future to validate fact and truth in
principle.
In 1919, astronomers went to the West African island of Prķncipe, to
observe a total solar eclipse and prove or disprove Einsteins General
Theory of Relativity. It was proved right.
This was four years after he formulated the theory.
Why is that a problem with you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Errol... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 8:42 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 3:25 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
You have no interest in
debate or discourse,
If you had any interest or desire to debate or have discourse then you
would not bother with the above off topic crap and instead you would
have taken the opportunity I offered you to explain how something that
does not exist ("next week") can be used to validate fact and truth.
[/quote]
take #2
Why can you not understand that some truths cannot be immediately
validated.
In your world, truths are all simplistic stories of distinguishing
between ants and elephants, dipping one's head in acid and exploding
in the vacuum of space.
The Higg's Boson is a theoretical particle that can only be proven
once the new accelorator at CERN is up and running. The truth can only
be validated in the future.
In my first post I mentioned the case of General relativity taking
four years before it proven during an eclipse. The truth was only
validated in the future.
Try and think this through before responding. Let your mind catch up
to your typing speed first. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 7:38 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Not that I am against using the future to validate fact and truth in
principle.
[/quote]
You can not use or make a demand of that which does not exist to be
used as the validation of anything, dont be silly.
[quote]In 1919, astronomers went to the West African island of Prķncipe, to
observe a total solar eclipse.....
[/quote]
Oh so now you are saying they had to observe the eclipse as a
happening event before they could prove, validate, find the truth, and
or determine the facts?
Gosh Errol, that sounds awefully much like you agreeing with me, that
the future can not be used nor be demanded as the validation of
anything, that in the pursuit of facts / truth, the event has to have
happened or be happening before anything can be proven as fact /
truth?
So you're saying, its not the future but rather its the event itself,
that can only ever be used to determine fact / truth?
Good on you Errol.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 7:52 pm, Errol <vs.er... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The truth was only
validated in the future.
[/quote]
Silly you, that doesn't make any sense, grammatically or
chronologically, truth and facts can only be validated in the present
or from the past, and you were going so well too, the future can not
be used or be demaned as a requirement to validate anything.
Things are what they are, reality is what it is, reality is absolute,
A is A
And yes you can be mistaken in your identification, in reality you add
to your knowledge you dont subtract from it.
Knowledge is contextual and hierarchical.
"The future" e.g. "next week" is by definition a moment that does not
exist, it cant ever be used to validate anything.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Giga... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"turtoni" <turtoni at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:01d60922-d9be-4c84-be02-3556a71c3b61 at (no spam) k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 12:09 am, turtoni <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:53 am, "Andy F." <never.m... at (no spam) tesco.net> wrote:
"turtoni" <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:hcqq5o$61c$1 at (no spam) aioe.org...
Here's what you'll live in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Street_of_terraced_housing.jpg
It's so much better under capitalism.
http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Union-City_NJ_07087_...
[/quote]
Anyway the point is that it's typical to own a terraced house in the
UK.
In the USA is typical to own a completely detached house (outside of
the cities).
=Thats not true. In the UK I think the typical house is probably a semi
(semi detached), however there are many detached house in the country, my
guess 50% of all house in the UK. ALso BTW UK not a socilaist country. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 2:50 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 4:12 pm, Tim <tbees... at (no spam) aci.on.ca> wrote:
All conservatives are right wing.
Shrug,
[/quote]
Yawn.
[quote]
The only difference between left and right wing politics are arguments
over who and how much to steal from and who and how much to give the
procedes of theft to.
[/quote]
So Communism is Capitalism, since a is a, and all that? Yawn.
[quote]
Both left and right wing politics (and whether or not they call
themselves conservative matters not a flying fuck, other than any form
of conservation is evil / anti-human) both left and right politics
demand sacrifice of the human individual's liberty for bogus glories.
[/quote]
Yawn
[quote]
The bogus glory of the left is their nauseating nasal chant, "for the
greater good" the bogus glory of the right is their equally as
nauseating nasal chant "for efficiency", the sacrifice of the
individual's liberty, that they borth demand, is identical in
principle / in fundamentals.
The weird thing, conventional left wingers generally warm far more to
libertarian principles than conventional right wingers ever do.
So "cronyizm"[sic] is a piss-take?
"Aint socialism grand" is the piss-take.
MG
[/quote]
Yawn. Sorry gotta go, you are simply too stupid to waste any more time
on. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 12:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 1:41 am, Tim <tbees... at (no spam) aci.on.ca> wrote:
[quote]
So Communism is Capitalism,..........
[/quote]
Ewe dumb commie cunt, right wing does not and never has meant
capitailism, it is and has alway been just another shade of socialism
on the path to communism.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, "Tim" <t... at (no spam) arc.com> wrote:
[quote]"Michael Gordge" <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:c4917b3f-4331-473c-aea2-5f938aa6de11 at (no spam) k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 1:41 am, Tim <tbees... at (no spam) aci.on.ca> wrote:
So Communism is Capitalism,..........
Ewe dumb commie cunt, right wing does not and never has meant
capitailism, it is and has alway been just another shade of socialism
on the path to communism.
MG
---------------------
So A is A and right wing is left wing, hmmmmmm, you are on dope?
[/quote]
Ewe ignorant cunt, there is no fundamental / philosophic difference
between right and left wing, in as much as they BOTH demand sacrifice
of the human individual's liberty for a bogus glory.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 2:27 pm, "turtoni" <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
[quote]He's a capitalistic puritan.
[/quote]
A capitalist.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 1:07 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 2:27 pm, "turtoni" <turt... at (no spam) fastmail.net> wrote:
He's a capitalistic puritan.
A capitalist.
MG
[/quote]
"Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-
labor factors of production (also known as the means of production),
is privately controlled[citation needed]; labor, goods and capital are
traded in markets; profits distributed to owners or invested in
technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor. However,
since prior economic systems featured all these elements to some
degree, capitalism might differentiate itself by the pervasiveness of
wage labor in the interdependent social class context of nonlabor
income derived from property not intended for the owner's (or
employer's) active personal use.
There is no consensus on capitalism nor how it should be used as an
analytical category. There are a variety of historical cases over
which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different
perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Scholars in the social
sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists,
anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define
capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership
of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit
in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.
Economists usually put emphasis on the market mechanism, degree of
government control over markets (laissez faire), and property rights,
while most political economists emphasize private property, power
relations, wage labor, and class. There is a general agreement that
capitalism encourages economic growth. The extent to which different
markets are "free", as well as the rules determining what may and may
not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy and many
states have what are termed "mixed economies."
Capitalism as a system developed incrementally from the 16th century
in Europe, although capitalist-like organizations existed in the
ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished
during the Late Middle Ages. Capitalism became dominant in the Western
world following the demise of feudalism. Capitalism gradually spread
throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the
main means of industrialization throughout much of the world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 1:06 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 2:15 pm, "Tim" <t... at (no spam) arc.com> wrote:
"Michael Gordge" <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:c4917b3f-4331-473c-aea2-5f938aa6de11 at (no spam) k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 7, 1:41 am, Tim <tbees... at (no spam) aci.on.ca> wrote:
So Communism is Capitalism,..........
Ewe dumb commie cunt, right wing does not and never has meant
capitailism, it is and has alway been just another shade of socialism
on the path to communism.
MG
---------------------
So A is A and right wing is left wing, hmmmmmm, you are on dope?
Ewe ignorant cunt, there is no fundamental / philosophic difference
between right and left wing, in as much as they BOTH demand sacrifice
of the human individual's liberty for a bogus glory.
MG- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Soooo, according to your dopey randroid un-logic there is no
fundamental / philosophic difference between socialism/communism/
kantianism [your dopey equivocation] and capitalism/randroid dogmatic
prattle [your equivocation] because BOTH seek to satisfy human needs
and wants. According to the same idiotic babble, dogs and cats are
fundamentally and philosophically the same because they are BOTH pets.
But heh, what can one expect from an idiot who claims that energy
costs rise because people insulate their homes?
Keep it up shagger, you too, faulty facts weiss, randroidism needs
you, despite the surge in sales!!!!!!!
When are all the converts going to drop out? Off to galt's ditch,
hmmm. I, for one, can't wait!!!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:c4917b3f-4331-473c-aea2-5f938aa6de11 at (no spam) k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 1:41 am, Tim <tbees... at (no spam) aci.on.ca> wrote:
[quote]
So Communism is Capitalism,..........
[/quote]
Ewe dumb commie cunt, right wing does not and never has meant
capitailism, it is and has alway been just another shade of socialism
on the path to communism.
MG
---------------------
So A is A and right wing is left wing, hmmmmmm, you are on dope? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tim" <t at (no spam) arc.com> wrote in message news:hd2vou$ieb$1 at (no spam) aioe.org...
[quote]
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:c4917b3f-4331-473c-aea2-5f938aa6de11 at (no spam) k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 1:41 am, Tim <tbees... at (no spam) aci.on.ca> wrote:
So Communism is Capitalism,..........
Ewe dumb commie cunt, right wing does not and never has meant
capitailism, it is and has alway been just another shade of socialism
on the path to communism.
MG
---------------------
So A is A and right wing is left wing, hmmmmmm, you are on dope?
[/quote]
He's a capitalistic puritan. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:27 pm
|
|