Lelouch24 Posts
SovietArcher wrote...
Lishy1 wrote...
So wait.. You still haven't differentiated Shigeru Miyamoto, and Mitt Romney? Oh my...
Well here's who he is, and what he does:
Fun fact: He also saved the video game industry and revolutionized video games forever with the NES. He deserves every penny he gets!
my response to your question was that i hate all rich men/women equally; no one should ever be elevated that high; that's just how i think
why should i have to tell you who he is? i was well aware but it is a completely different topic; we were debating politicians not video game creators
[color=#2e1a6b]Sorry for butting in, but I feel that the OP doesn't understand Lishy's argument.
Lishy is not getting off-topic; y'all were discussing rich people, not politicians or videogame creators.
SovietArcher, you need to understand that while some rich people don't deserve their wealth, there are some rich people that do deserve their wealth. Lishy used Miyamoto as an example of someone who deserves to be rich. He created video-games, people liked his video-games, so people payed him money. He continued to have high customer satisfaction, so people willingly bought his products. He become rich because people chose to make him rich. This might sound obvious or stupid, but compare this to someone who doesn't deserve to be rich:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]This is just a simplified example of lobbying; I don't want to start a healthcare debate here. I don't know the statistics, but I think most of the "1%" are rich because the government helped them become rich, not because liberty is flawed.
SovietArcher wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
SovietArcher wrote...
essentially if you don't benefit society at all, by not working, the state would take your home away - until such time as you decide to work
[color=#2e1a6b]I didn't say that they wouldn't work, I said that they wouldn't work hard. They'd be as lazy as they can get away with. everyone would be half as productive (or less) than they would be if they reaped the benefits of their own work. The socialist system relies on the society as a whole to be productive, and if the society isn't productive, the entire system collapses.
in communism there is no such thing as welfare; when the wealth is distributed evenly; you want to become a doctor? do it because you want to help people, not to get a bigger pay cheque, the same goes for education which would rise dramatically due to passionate teachers
[color=#2e1a6b]Those motivations aren't exclusive to communism. In capitalism, people are motivated by their own passion AND the money earned from the job. If you take away earnings as a motivation, people's desire to work will be greatly decreased
capitalism takes away the incentive for human potential to be fully achieved
[color=#2e1a6b]no, capitalism provides an additional incentive
and i've already read that book but i shall read it again :D
[color=#2e1a6b]If you've read it, you don't have to read it again; I just wanted you to understand the source of my argument. Many people become doctors for the cheque not because they want to
[color=#2e1a6b]you might be right when you say that people become doctors for the money, but your wrong when you say that they don't want to become doctors. People will do what they want. If one's dream is money, he will do what it takes to get money. If one's dream is to help people, he will do what it takes to help people. regardless of which one motivates him, he still becomes a doctor because he wants to.
capitalism provides incentive towards jobs a,b, or c - lawyer,doctor,politician
if a job doesn't pay lots such as a pizza chef (but if its what you really want to do) people will mock you, and degrade you as a human being in their mercedes benses and bmws
if a job doesn't pay lots such as a pizza chef (but if its what you really want to do) people will mock you, and degrade you as a human being in their mercedes benses and bmws
[color=#2e1a6b]More difficult jobs have higher pay, this should make sense. I look at this as a flaw in communism.
also i don't know if you are aware of this but in many parts of the ussr non productive comrades got flogged on the hand and face with bamboo sticks;
lazyness is not tolerated you would be told "if you don't like this job work somewhere else" you apply, and the very next day you are well on your way
lazyness is not tolerated you would be told "if you don't like this job work somewhere else" you apply, and the very next day you are well on your way
[color=#2e1a6b]ok, this is just ridiculous. Sorry if I sound rude, but I need to let out this rant...
Throughout this discussion, you have the attitude that capitalism forces you to try to make money and die, while communism allows you to pursue your dreams and be free. You just said that capitalism forces you to get a job and be productive, else you get smacked in the face with bamboo sticks. To make things worse, you don't reap the labor of your forced productivity. You're practically a slave!: you are forced to work (else you get beaten), and your master (the government) takes care of you.
SovietArcher wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
SovietArcher wrote...
the wealth must be spread around;it must benefit the entirety of mankind instead of the ceo or corporation stock holders, that wouldn't exist
[color=#2e1a6b]This is exactly what I meant when I said "legal plunder". That link directs you to an online version of the book. It's a very short book, so I recommend you read it, or at least the first few sections of it.
Here's a story that explains why I'm against equal distribution of wealth
Spoiler:
want a pack of smokes and pair of jeans? did you work really hard to make a little extra money? go to the market! it's affordable now, yay! :)
[color=#2e1a6b]What if you didn't work hard? the wealth of society is spread around. If you work hard, that extra amount is distributed to society; you don't keep it. If you don't work, you still get wealth from other people's work. Like the students in the above story, no one will work hard, so the products won't be affordable
essentially if you don't benefit society at all, by not working, the state would take your home away - until such time as you decide to work
[color=#2e1a6b]I didn't say that they wouldn't work, I said that they wouldn't work hard. They'd be as lazy as they can get away with. everyone would be half as productive (or less) than they would be if they reaped the benefits of their own work. The socialist system relies on the society as a whole to be productive, and if the society isn't productive, the entire system collapses.
in communism there is no such thing as welfare; when the wealth is distributed evenly; you want to become a doctor? do it because you want to help people, not to get a bigger pay cheque, the same goes for education which would rise dramatically due to passionate teachers
[color=#2e1a6b]Those motivations aren't exclusive to communism. In capitalism, people are motivated by their own passion AND the money earned from the job. If you take away earnings as a motivation, people's desire to work will be greatly decreased
capitalism takes away the incentive for human potential to be fully achieved
[color=#2e1a6b]no, capitalism provides an additional incentive
and i've already read that book but i shall read it again :D
[color=#2e1a6b]If you've read it, you don't have to read it again; I just wanted you to understand the source of my argument. SovietArcher wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]Say what!, be careful about dissing marxism, Flaser will probably give you a mouthfulOT:
I just finished reading 2 different books at school: The communist manifesto, and The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. I didn't like the communist manifesto at all; it seemed like they were intentionally trying to create a flawed system, with the intention that the proletariat would rebel or something. I probably didn't read it write, but it just didn't make sense to me.
The Law was an amazing book, and pretty much describes my political view. I think the law (the government) is meant to protect basic human rights; it is not meant to abolish these rights for the purpose of socialism. I'm not very good with political terminology, but I think I'm a libertarian. I support the free market, limited government, no "legal plunder" (quote from The Law). Except for religous views, I pretty much always agree with FPOD, so whatever he is, I think I am.
the wealth must be spread around;
it must benefit the entirety of mankind instead of the ceo or corporation stock holders, that wouldn't exist
[color=#2e1a6b]This is exactly what I meant when I said "legal plunder". That link directs you to an online version of the book. It's a very short book, so I recommend you read it, or at least the first few sections of it.
Here's a story that explains why I'm against equal distribution of wealth
Spoiler:
want a pack of smokes and pair of jeans? did you work really hard to make a little extra money? go to the market! it's affordable now, yay! :)
[color=#2e1a6b]What if you didn't work hard? the wealth of society is spread around. If you work hard, that extra amount is distributed to society; you don't keep it. If you don't work, you still get wealth from other people's work. Like the students in the above story, no one will work hard, so the products won't be affordable
[color=#2e1a6b]Say what!, be careful about dissing marxism, Flaser will probably give you a mouthful
OT:
I just finished reading 2 different books at school: The communist manifesto, and The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. I didn't like the communist manifesto at all; it seemed like they were intentionally trying to create a flawed system, with the intention that the proletariat would rebel or something. I probably didn't read it right, but it just didn't make sense to me.
The Law was an amazing book, and pretty much describes my political view. I think the law (the government) is meant to protect basic human rights; it is not meant to abolish these rights for the purpose of socialism. I'm not very good with political terminology, but I think I'm a libertarian. I support the free market, limited government, no "legal plunder" (quote from The Law). Except for religous views, I pretty much always agree with FPOD, so whatever the name for his view is, that's what my view is
OT:
I just finished reading 2 different books at school: The communist manifesto, and The Law by Frédéric Bastiat. I didn't like the communist manifesto at all; it seemed like they were intentionally trying to create a flawed system, with the intention that the proletariat would rebel or something. I probably didn't read it right, but it just didn't make sense to me.
The Law was an amazing book, and pretty much describes my political view. I think the law (the government) is meant to protect basic human rights; it is not meant to abolish these rights for the purpose of socialism. I'm not very good with political terminology, but I think I'm a libertarian. I support the free market, limited government, no "legal plunder" (quote from The Law). Except for religous views, I pretty much always agree with FPOD, so whatever the name for his view is, that's what my view is
[color=#2e1a6b]I wear sandals year-round, and I have a pair of nike basketball shoes. I usually get a new pair of BB shoes every year, and the previous pair of BB shoes become my regular shoes (but I rarely wear shoes)
Ziggy wrote...
I think the poll isn't entirely accurate. Media pushes for propaganda and to weigh the scale to the way corporations, politicians, and parties want viewers to see it. That doesn't create a world where people cannot think for themselves, but it does lead to a world of misguided people who rely on the source of what they think is credible news to in fact be skewed and distorted in the way they want the viewers to see it.However it's the viewers responsibility then to get up from the couch and find out facts for themselves.
I was referring to entertainment-based media (like movies and tv-shows), but you bring up a good point about the news media. They certainly distort the way viewers see the news, and they do have control over society through the new media. They present the facts in such a way that you would be stupid to not agree with them, because they leave out opposing facts crucial to the issue. If kids were fighting about something and are explaining their case to their mom, they purposely report the facts in a way that benefits them. It's funny, but this is a perfect example of what the news media does. You already said it perfectly:
"However it's the viewers responsibility then to get up from the couch and find out facts for themselves."
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
Society controls the social norms, which are then reflected in the art of social media.[color=#2e1a6b]But teenagers (people who have little experience in society) don't know what the social norms are. There are 2 sources by which a teen can base his idea of what is normal:
1. by watching media that teaches you what the social norms are
2. by observing the way his enclosure of friends behave (in which his friends get their social norms from media)
Or.
3. By hanging out with their friends and family in society, where social norms are expressed in a variety of different ways. Walking on the right side of a hallway, using certain staircases to go up and certain staircases to go down. How close you can be to someone before it's creepy, how long you can look at someone, whether or not to point, when to swear, when to not swear, etc. Etc.
These things are expressed REGULARLY, and not in media. Social norms are always learned in society, the media only reflects what society recognizes already. It never 'sets the trends'. The trends are already there.
[color=#2e1a6b]I think trends can be set by the media, it just takes time. I'll attempt to explain this through an example:
Spoiler:
[color=#2e1a6b]sorry if the example seemed stupid, but I meant to show how an idea from media will slowly be accepted simply because we draw part of our opinion of social norms from it.
BigLundi wrote...
Society controls the social norms, which are then reflected in the art of social media.[color=#2e1a6b]But teenagers (people who have little experience in society) don't know what the social norms are. There are 2 sources by which a teen can base his idea of what is normal:
1. by watching media that teaches you what the social norms are
2. by observing the way his enclosure of friends behave (in which his friends get their social norms from media)
I thought this was pretty simple for people to recognize, especially with the example given of "16 and Pregnant".
Or...did people think teenagers weren't getting pregnant before that show came on the air?
Or...did people think teenagers weren't getting pregnant before that show came on the air?
[color=#2e1a6b]Teenagers thought that it was rare (abnormal) for teenagers to get pregnant. This show caused them to think that it was normal for teens to get pregnant.
Though I'd like to comment that social media can influence society to some extent, though mainly just teenagers that are searching for identity and trying to learn where their place is in the world. For instance, a 30 year old woman is not as likely to be convinced by The Notebook that this is how relationships are supposed to be, whereas a 16 year old girl might.
I agree[color=#2e1a6b] with you; Reality shows and such have a greater influence on people who have little experience in society. Because they have less experience, they don't know what's normal and what's not. Whereas a 30-year old woman knows from her own experience what's normal and what's not.
[color=#2e1a6b]I have very little association with American TV shows and movies, So I don't necessarily know the answer to my own question (hence I'm asking it). My question basically asks where ideas originate. When I say ideas, I basically mean our thoughts on what is normal behavior. It might help I ask the question differently:
(X represents any behavior, such as getting pregnant at 16)
is X normal to society, and this causes entertainment media to represent X as normal?
or does entertainment media represent X as normal, and this causes society to think X is normal, making Society more likely to do X?
(X represents any behavior, such as getting pregnant at 16)
is X normal to society, and this causes entertainment media to represent X as normal?
or does entertainment media represent X as normal, and this causes society to think X is normal, making Society more likely to do X?
[color=#2e1a6b]I have very little association with American TV shows and movies, So I don't necessarily know the answer to my own question (hence I'm asking it). My question basically asks where ideas originate. When I say ideas, I basically mean our thoughts on what is normal behavior. It might help I ask the question differently:
(X represents any behavior, such as getting pregnant at 16)
is X normal to society, and this causes entertainment media to represent X as normal?
or does entertainment media represent X as normal, and this causes society to think X is normal, making Society more likely to do X?
(X represents any behavior, such as getting pregnant at 16)
is X normal to society, and this causes entertainment media to represent X as normal?
or does entertainment media represent X as normal, and this causes society to think X is normal, making Society more likely to do X?
[color=#2e1a6b]Sounds like HHH triple H, except for when you said "he steps on here vibrator
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm confused about which order I'm supposed to watch/play the fate series.
Fate/stay night (the visual novel) came out first, but it says that it's a sequal to fate/zero, which came out later. So, which do I watch/play first? fate/zero or fate/stay night?
also, is the anime of fate/zero worth watching, or should I stick with the manga?
Fate/stay night (the visual novel) came out first, but it says that it's a sequal to fate/zero, which came out later. So, which do I watch/play first? fate/zero or fate/stay night?
also, is the anime of fate/zero worth watching, or should I stick with the manga?
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't go to public school, so I haven't actually experienced the American education system. I have talked to my friends about it, and they say that it's pretty bad. (according to them) Half of the time, the teachers don't teach, they just tell you to read certain pages and study them. One time, the students were playing Halo PC instead of studying, and the teacher didn't stop them... he played Halo with them! The content itself doesn't require any thinking at all; It's all memorizing and accepting as true: memorize this formula, memorize what this guy did, memorize this name, etc. I don't know what they teach about getting jobs, but I'd be surprised if they teach that. My opinion is that the people who control education want people to rely on the government. So they teach children to rely on the government, instead of teaching them how to fend for themselves.
My teacher has this video where he explains what happened to our education system. (click PART 2 on the left side, then watch from 9:00 to 13:20)
My teacher has this video where he explains what happened to our education system. (click PART 2 on the left side, then watch from 9:00 to 13:20)
[color=#2e1a6b]I watched 'till episode 311 (aizen's defeat). There was filler after that, so I skipped to around 348. The fullbring made no sense, and really felt like another filler. I don't intend to finish it, even if it's just 12 more episodes
[color=#2e1a6b]awesome, maybe we'll reach 4 million by next year
btw, we aren't listed on this forum ranking site, we need an entry there now
btw, we aren't listed on this forum ranking site, we need an entry there now
[color=#2e1a6b]Just got back from an AMAZING Basketball tournament (we got 5th place outta 24 teams)
[color=#2e1a6b]Because you'd be guilty of Hasty generalization if you didn't.
[color=#2e1a6b]This is funny; I just starting listening to Alex Jones a few weeks ago. I don't believe that everything he says is true, but it's nice to get news on the stuff that mainstream media deliberately ignores.
98% of the time, the documents he references are not "secret documents". They're publicly available documents that you could instantly find on Google. He doesn't devote his videos to proving that the document exist because he's doing a radio show, not a youtube debate.
BigLundi wrote...
when someone comes along claiming to have exposed Obama on something...why the fuck should I listen?[color=#2e1a6b]Because you'd be guilty of Hasty generalization if you didn't.
Alex Jones is a psychotic believer in the idea that demons control the government, who are trying to turn you gay with chemicals in your drinking water.
I don't take him seriously no matter what he says. Even if he's right, a broken watch is right two times a day.
That doesn't stop him from all the time claiming that "We've found the secret documents! We have the government documents!" and never showing them.
I don't take him seriously no matter what he says. Even if he's right, a broken watch is right two times a day.
That doesn't stop him from all the time claiming that "We've found the secret documents! We have the government documents!" and never showing them.
[color=#2e1a6b]This is funny; I just starting listening to Alex Jones a few weeks ago. I don't believe that everything he says is true, but it's nice to get news on the stuff that mainstream media deliberately ignores.
98% of the time, the documents he references are not "secret documents". They're publicly available documents that you could instantly find on Google. He doesn't devote his videos to proving that the document exist because he's doing a radio show, not a youtube debate.
EZ-2789 wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
[color=#2e1a6b]What do you mean "I'm shocked"? I asked you to explain how "declaring war" is a power, and you replied by saying that congress can basically encourage ("your doing the right thing") his actions, or discourage ("you should stop") his actions. Anyone can do that, that's not a power. You then said how congress has the power to fund and maintain an army. While this is true, this power is not given to congress by the "declaring war" clause. If you look at the 18 clauses (posted above), you'll see that the power to maintain the military has its own clause. The power to fund the military is also its own clause. So, you still haven't explained how "declaring war" is a power. You admitted it was a power in your first reply.
I don't want to make a false assumption here, but it sounds like you're saying that none of the clauses are related to one another. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[color=#2e1a6b]I don't know what you mean by "related", but I'm saying that the power to fund and maintain the army is not achieved by the power to declare war.
[b]Regardless, if you want a definitive answer, it's not hard. The 11th clause gives Congress more authority than you to say we should or shouldn't be at war. So when Congress says something about it, even if you're saying the same thing or something else, it's more important. The President is constitutionally obligated to at least listen to Congress, not you.
[color=#2e1a6b]You said the president must listen to congress, which could mean:
A. he just hears what congress has to say and then ignores them
or
B. he is required to comply with congress' decision on declaring war
To figure out which one is true, let's me ask you through a hypothetical example. The president sent an attack on Syria and engaged in combat. The president tells congress what he's doing, and congress says "we refuse to declare war as they do not possess a threat to our national security". Is the president required to stop attacking them and pull out?
[color=#2e1a6b]There's nothing wrong with the president going to congress to ask for permission to start a war.
[b]That's the thing. Every time the President's gone to Congress about it, it's because war was completely inevitable.
[color=#2e1a6b]And when war is not completely inevitable, he doesn't go to congress, and starts the war without a declaration.
[color=#2e1a6b]Doesn't the 18th (final) clause support the war powers act?
[b]No. What the 18th clause supports is the creation of laws regarding the other sections of the government. It doesn't say those laws aren't subject to review and interpretation. That's what the courts are for.
[color=#2e1a6b]huh?
I think you're saying that the law is supposed to be reviewed by the courts (which I agree with), but how does that show that the war powers act isn't constitutional?
[color=#2e1a6b]I'm not sure where you're getting this information from. I'm pretty sure that all they need is proof that they're a threat to our national security.
And who's going to find that proof? They are? No. If a visible attack has not already been made by an opposing nation/international actor, then the burden of organizing and presenting any and all information that may be evidence of a possible attack as a case to bring forth before Congress falls on the President and the Executive Department.
[color=#2e1a6b]You act like this is a new idea... do presidents not have evidence of a possible attack when they start an undeclared war?
If they have evidence, then they just show this evidence to congress. If they don't, then that just shows that they shouldn't have started a war
[b]A declaration of war is like a trial to see whether or not a state of war exists or will exist. That takes time. Time that both the Executive and Legislative Branches may or may not have. You make it sound simple, but it's really not.
[color=#2e1a6b][color=#2e1a6b]War is not something to be taken lightly; it cost loads of money and kills enemy soldiers as well as our own. Something as serious as war should take time; if it doesn't take time, somethings wrong.
[b]And I like how you seemingly disregarded the second half of that paragraph in my last post. To a certain extent, it makes this part of the argument a moot point.
[color=#2e1a6b]sorry, I didn't notice that last argument. I didn't quote that other part of it because It was kinda based off your previous statement, which I didn't agree with
[b]Even if we get a declaration of war before the attack, we're still letting them know about it because we're declaring it. That essentially takes away the first strike advantage.
[color=#2e1a6b]At most, it might take away a sneak attack. They will have no idea when we're attacking, where we're attacking, or what weapons we're attack with... all they'll know is that the most powerful army in the world is going to attack.
