Ben No.3

Do you have any idea how disgusting that is to say? There are people suffering. We all have no idea of the agony they have to go through. All they ask for is a second shot at life, and you are denying it out of some self righteous egocentric mindset?I'm pretty sure there are plenty of suffering people in 2 miles radious from your home that you don't give a rats ass about and you do nothing to help them because it would take effort. Instead you rant on the internet for other countries to help people from yet another country because it shows how "good" you are and it doesn't cost you a thing. Now who is disgusting? In a 2 mile radius from me, the poorest... are housed in social housing and get around 350€ Welfare a month per person worst case. That's how much they suffer. So advocating for saving human life is now disgusting? My oh my what an interesting set of values you have. Besides, I participate in programs which leads to me giving away clothes, toys and books every three or two months. It's organised by a church nearby. They give it also to refugees. So shut up about me not helping. On the other hand, we have you guys. Let me just quote from the weaponised empathy crap "Forget what they want you to do. It doesn’t matter what they want, if they are being lying a**holes. You don’t need to consider the opinions of liars. What does it matter if they want you to bring in 100,000 Syrians? They are dishonest scum, using cynically-manipulated pictures of dead kids to do it. Their opinions can be dismissed without moral reservation because of this. Say so, openly, and without fear. You have the moral high ground, because you’re not a cynical, lying, a**hole" If this is the honest reaction you have to those pictures, then god help you. Or whatever other twisted ideology you believe in. I hope you can proudly say to your grand children "I was against taking in the refugees during the crisis" when they hear about it in school.

Denying help? Who said that letting immigrants in your country is helping or that's the only way to help? Their country is broken, partially due to our involvement. We also live in some of te richest countries on earth, so we can take it.

Let me get this straight.... Caring about people is now an evil weapon of te left? So much for your Christian culture you're so deadest on defending. I'm sure Jesus would be proud of you!

Do you have any idea how disgusting that is to say? There are people suffering. We all have no idea of the agony they have to go through. All they ask for is a second shot at life, and you are denying it out of some self righteous egocentric mindset?

Let me just remind you that it is these people you're denying help and these children you're denying a future.

two things we can at least agree on; this and that planet of the apes was a fine picture. By that I hope you mean the first one with Charleton Heston! The rest, including the modern versions.... not so much. It's a reference https://youtu.be/ovPGYPzpbWk

two things we can at least agree on; this and that planet of the apes was a fine picture.

The full list of Trump's 'under-reported' terror attacks – and how they were reported | US news | The Guardian - www.theguardian.com https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/07/full-list-of-trump-under-reported-terror-attacks-and-how-they-were-reported?openedFrom=todaywidget&campaign_id=A100&articleList=full-list-of-trump-under-reported-terror-attacks-and-how-they-were-reported,katy-perry-announces-new-look-grammy-performance-make-comeback,donald-trump-twitter-attack-new-york-time-nyt-white-house-life-revelations-bathrobe-sean-spicer-a7566821.html,santa-clarita-diet-the-verdict-on-drew-barrymores-cannibalistic-comeback

This made me laugh quite a lot. And I thought I over interpreted things. The author seems pissed that they in the end go into an expensive Audi and drive away. He sees this as representative of the upper class and they're tight grip on the lower class. Had this been simply a video clip, he would be right. But this is an ad, and thus I find it perfectly reasonable for Audi to show off. And I mean you have to give it to them, the car does look great. But again.... no message aside from "we make good looking cars BUY OUR STUFF PLEASE". The over interpretation of this ad also suffers from a logical error: if Audi beliefs that the upper class should always have the edge over the lower class, then why would they use that as an advertisement strategy? I'm no PR expert, but this does seem like a big middle finger towards many potential soon-to-be customers. So I don't see why they'd actually try to convey that message in an ad. The author of this article seems to be te kind of person who also would think that hard right winged billionaires who lie in bed with Wall Street would be a tremendous representative for the working class. It doesn't make all to much sense when you think about it. Bennie please summarize your view on what you think should be the most effective system of government, do you believe in Socialism or Communism? Can you give me an example of a country you think the West should emulate around ideology if at all ? Well I'd say I'm a socialist. As for what country we should emulate... well non. That's not the point... ideally, we take te best of everything. Finnish' education system, Switzerland's system of direct democracy, the US' limitations on the number of years the president can be in office, Germany's parliamentary system... The most effective government is one that is completely transparent and that can be put out of power by the people anytime. I'm a fan of close to complete release of all information on governmental action, and I'm a big fan of referendums, including such ones that can put te executive out of power. You see where I'm heading at? Do I believe in communism? As an utopian ideal, it is appealing. As with all utopias, it suffers from reality. Talking about political realities, I think the point is to take a socialist system and correct its problems with capitalist elements. So keep a free market, but regulate it heavily, give all people free education, health insurance and a guaranteed basic unconditional income, democracy at te workplace, no inherent wealth, no owners of land, shared cars inside of cities (as opposed to private ownership), governmental participation in central markets, .... I've also come to adopt many ecological standpoints. Bennie you make some points I agree with and I can see the potential. If i was the final decision maker around architectural design on your ideology I would only change one or two things but before I comment what is the unemployment rate and tax rate in your system? It is relevant to the objectives How am I to define the unemployment rate of a theoretical country? Same for taxes... have to adjust to the country. But they'll be quite high. Up to 60% maybe, if the country can support that. Taxes on wealth maybe up to 5%. Point being redistribution I should note that an unconditional basic income is only a temporary measure until it is ensured that absolutely everyone can afford a good standard of living.

This made me laugh quite a lot. And I thought I over interpreted things. The author seems pissed that they in the end go into an expensive Audi and drive away. He sees this as representative of the upper class and they're tight grip on the lower class. Had this been simply a video clip, he would be right. But this is an ad, and thus I find it perfectly reasonable for Audi to show off. And I mean you have to give it to them, the car does look great. But again.... no message aside from "we make good looking cars BUY OUR STUFF PLEASE". The over interpretation of this ad also suffers from a logical error: if Audi beliefs that the upper class should always have the edge over the lower class, then why would they use that as an advertisement strategy? I'm no PR expert, but this does seem like a big middle finger towards many potential soon-to-be customers. So I don't see why they'd actually try to convey that message in an ad. The author of this article seems to be te kind of person who also would think that hard right winged billionaires who lie in bed with Wall Street would be a tremendous representative for the working class. It doesn't make all to much sense when you think about it. Bennie please summarize your view on what you think should be the most effective system of government, do you believe in Socialism or Communism? Can you give me an example of a country you think the West should emulate around ideology if at all ? Well I'd say I'm a socialist. As for what country we should emulate... well non. That's not the point... ideally, we take te best of everything. Finnish' education system, Switzerland's system of direct democracy, the US' limitations on the number of years the president can be in office, Germany's parliamentary system... The most effective government is one that is completely transparent and that can be put out of power by the people anytime. I'm a fan of close to complete release of all information on governmental action, and I'm a big fan of referendums, including such ones that can put te executive out of power. You see where I'm heading at? Do I believe in communism? As an utopian ideal, it is appealing. As with all utopias, it suffers from reality. Talking about political realities, I think the point is to take a socialist system and correct its problems with capitalist elements. So keep a free market, but regulate it heavily, give all people free education, health insurance and a guaranteed basic unconditional income, democracy at te workplace, no inherent wealth, no owners of land, shared cars inside of cities (as opposed to private ownership), governmental participation in central markets, .... I've also come to adopt many ecological standpoints.

Not grabbing women by the pu$$y?

This made me laugh quite a lot. And I thought I over interpreted things. The author seems pissed that they in the end go into an expensive Audi and drive away. He sees this as representative of the upper class and they're tight grip on the lower class. Had this been simply a video clip, he would be right. But this is an ad, and thus I find it perfectly reasonable for Audi to show off. And I mean you have to give it to them, the car does look great. But again.... no message aside from "we make good looking cars BUY OUR STUFF PLEASE". The over interpretation of this ad also suffers from a logical error: if Audi beliefs that the upper class should always have the edge over the lower class, then why would they use that as an advertisement strategy? I'm no PR expert, but this does seem like a big middle finger towards many potential soon-to-be customers. So I don't see why they'd actually try to convey that message in an ad. The author of this article seems to be te kind of person who also would think that hard right winged billionaires who lie in bed with Wall Street would be a tremendous representative for the working class. It doesn't make all to much sense when you think about it.

I'm at a state school. From what I hear from english friends who all visit private schools, my school is definitely at the same level.

It WOULD have a certain undeniable style

Off topic

Off topic

http://nypost.com/2017/01/28/after-years-of-liberal-hate-george-w-bush-is-getting-the-respect-he-deserves/ Bush deserves respect?

"Yeah yeah, these guys do have the better ideas how to run the country, but have you seen those other guys? SO MUCH MORE BADA$$!!"

Mass graves? Draconian prison sentences for speaking out? Labor camps? Should I go on?Weren't we talking about unrealistic utopias? Anyway, I'd define communism as an economic system in which private property is abolished. Consequently, the dictatorships you are referring to can be defied as state capitalism.

Yes yes communism is an unrealistic utopia, but so is capitalism, so what is defining for communism?

That plus the expansion of Federal Government control over what is or isn't taught in schools means a total loss of local and state control. If there is something your local government is doing that you don't like or want to see done better it is easy to reach out to the people who can make a change. If the Federal Government is doing something you don't like, tough luck. A recent example is the argument over whether Intelligent Design should have been taught alongside Evolution in Texas public schools. The voters of Texas who pay the taxes wanted it. the Federal Government said no. Whether you agree with ID or not, it's still up to the voters how live in the school districts to say what or how their children are taught IMO. That is lost once Big Brother is involved. Do you have a link to that? I have a hard time believing we let feds tell us what to teach. Not that I support teaching ID. Of course. Since a state can't be communist by definition, I'll refer to socialist states. I will also only imclude states that have socialism in their constitution up until today, and I will site the part of the constitution I'm referring to. I'll also include their form of government. I didn't ask you about socialism, I asked you about states commonly referred to as "communist" not for your own definition. The rest of your post is complete bullcrap as usual.Calling states socialism because they refer to themselves as socialist is wrong? Alright, let's see... we agree that Lenin was a communist? Lenin didn't care about persona cult. The Problem is that you think communism=dictatorship, and almost all dictatorships rely on personality cult. So the comparison would be, according to your rules, quite unfair. Let's clear up some terminology here... what do you think "communism" is?

No one is inheritly worth less than the other. When left to their own devices in affluence and in freedom, these gender roles as you call them are strenghtened. Men and women have simply different interests at heart. Men create hierarchies and compete with each within them and women choose the winners within those. It is manifested in your work force, in sports and in your very group of friends. We see it in our democratic processes as we elect leaders representing us. Not even the Soviet was without exception as there as well an inner circle was quickly developed. It is simply reality, of which the nuclear family is the very microcosmos of. Trying to undermine that and you destroy society. Did I just write half an essay on why the argument "that's just a way it is" is both false and worthless just so you responded basically saying "that's just the way it is"?

Where to start? First of all, you should understand that not everyone who likes gender equality is a Marxist, and gender equality is nothing inherent to Marxism. Now, your argument boils down to: "it has always been this way, why change a running system, everything else would be worse anyway." You see, there are problems with this mindset. The rules of the systems we create are just that: they are created, not given. And because we created them, we can change them, thus far the theory. Now, of course there is truth to that... There are countless examples of how the people radically changed the society they lived in. They did so whenever they realised that the system they lived under was inherently unfair and/or oppressive, and they seemed to resolve these issues. We saw this with the feudal system: its unfairness and the oppression seems obvious to us now, it created a society in which most people were essentially slaves. And in retrospective, we'd all agree on how problematic such a society is. Yet it lasted for centuries. So, how could. It sustain itself for such a long time without triggering rightful outrage and anger? The answer really is quite simple: systems have a tendency to be all consuming, meaning that they affect every part of the people's lives. If that happens, the people lack the basis to recognise the problems a society has, and thus never seek to change it in the first place. In the high times of feudalism, we can see this in th close tie between the feudal society and Christianity: the system gave everyone a fixed spot in society, and the church teached everyone to be happy and with that spot. Because Christianity was such a central part of life, very few would ever come to question the system they live under. Your argument, "it has always been like this and it works" is the only mindset people can develop under conditions in which the system they live under consumed everything INCLUDING culture. In the case of feudalism, it wasn't until the faith in the church crumbled that people started to question the system they lived under. What I'm trying to show here is that the argument of tradition isn't an argument at all. Rather, it is the very limitation that stops us from having actual discussion. So, let's move on to actual arguments, shall we? You bring up the successful separation of genders in older societies. I say that argument is completely useless for two reasons: firstly, we do not know how these societies would've been had the genders been judged equally, and secondly those societies are so radically different from ours that an examination of their ideology may be interesting for an historian, but it will help us very little if we wish to understand OUR world. So let's look at today's society, shall we? What does our society promise? That all men are created equal? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Liberté, égalité et fraternité? Whatever it is, most people would agree that freedom is a central promise of our society. Freedom, and freedom for all. Here's the thing about freedom: freedom requires equality. If we are not equal, those who have more worth will always seek to oppress those with less. In theory, we already understood this as self evident. Compare our laws to that of a feudal society. While the feudal society judged the individual's worth (his freedom, his value before court,...) by his place in society (a noble would always be worth more than a peasant), we hold everyone to be endowed to the same rights, and every voice to be equally valuable before court. But while our legal equality is at an all time high, our practical equality is at an all time low. A noble and a peasant had much more equal lives than a billionaire and a beggar. These vast differences steal what we hold so precious: our freedom. And we must fight these differences until we are truly free. So, if you tell me that "Pure equality is an ideal, hierarchy is a fact", I say that you are mistaken. Hierarchy is our reality, yes, but hierarchy is not a fact as in an unchangeable fact of life. Your view is corrupted, your system broken, your society failed. Hierarchy is not a fact, hierarchy is man made, and we can change it. But as long as you defend the hierarchy that costs us all our freedom, nothing will change. So tell me, Meshugger, what arguments aside from "it's always been this way, it has been this way for a reason, that's just how it works" do you have? What rational reason can you give me as to why a woman should be worth less than a man, why a woman shouldn't be able to decide over her own fait. The truth is, there is non. No argument that isn't tradition or one of its forms. So instead of telling me that mothers should look after the children "because that's what they should do", I recommend you take a very close look at your own set of values and start to solve the contradiction between freedom and a hierarchical society.

Ah, purchasing power being the sole purpose and meaning compared to having and living with a family, what a foundation of a thriving culture i would say. No, what i am pontificating is in welcoming the family unit once more to be that which is essential, the cornerstone of society. A radical idea i know, but i am dreamer. After all, house wives doing nothing is very rare and only reserved for the very wealthy historically. When you lived out on the farm or had a small business in town, it was simply a family venture and everyone participated. But again, that's probably something vulgar nowadays compared to getting a six figures student loan in the humanities. Gender roles have little to do with the proletariat, but much to do with equality (or rather tre lack thereof). Why do you account your own position that is based on nothing but tradition and conservatism to be right? It is laughable. You failed to respond as to why your proposal helps the children. I do not consider forced gender roles to be particularly healthy for them. Pure equality is an ideal, hierarchy is a fact. You version of marxism is a thought experiment conjured for chits & giggles when you live in affluence while the nuclear family has been proven to work since civilizations started to occur, it's simply reality. It has happened in cultures who has had no communication with each other and will continue to happen in the future, just as your ideas of breaking them up are (just look at Sparta or Plato's republic). It is rather you who should bring a strong case on why break something that already works and replace it with something else. Point being, the stronger the nuclear family, the better society and by extension the school system will be. Challenge accepted. I shall be back soonly.

Gender roles have little to do with the proletariat, but much to do with equality (or rather tre lack thereof). Why do you account your own position that is based on nothing but tradition and conservatism to be right? It is laughable. You failed to respond as to why your proposal helps the children. I do not consider forced gender roles to be particularly healthy for them.