Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 11:16 am

As you said, we should stop spending money on killing, and more on education.

Fallen Angel · Oct 4, 2003, 02:13 am

Lets see Section 8, your a Pacifist and you support Socialists who would want a violent revolution, so I draw from that, as long as you don't get hurt in any way, or be forced to hurt anyone, you would be quite comfortable living in a post revolution country, provided you never saw any violence to object to. not that you would dare.

G. Adams · Oct 4, 2003, 04:45 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Fallen Angel@10-04-2003 02:13 AM
Lets see Section 8, your a Pacifist and you support Socialists who would want a violent revolution, so I draw from that, as long as you don't get hurt in any way, or be forced to hurt anyone, you would be quite comfortable living in a post revolution country, provided you never saw any violence to object to. not that you would dare.

Some people draw lines of pacifism. There are some, even buddhists, who in personal lives wouldn't lift a finger against another person, or ant, yet when it comes to fighting for rights they will do so. I remember seeing a picture of this buddhist monk in Nepal waving an AK-47 over his head over something or other. I don't think it would be possible to live an entirely pacifist life unless you were a monk anyway, otherwise you would got trampled on by less compassionate people every day.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 5, 2003, 12:43 am

I'm all for arming the blue helmets to the teeth in their quest to uphold international human rights, but I'm never in my life going to fight for a Bush. Duplicous? I think not.

Fallen Angel · Oct 5, 2003, 02:14 am

Quote:

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@10-05-2003 12:43 AM
I'm all for arming the blue helmets to the teeth in their quest to uphold international human rights,

Now your talking!

RebelWithanAK · Oct 5, 2003, 10:42 am

You forget two things, FA - 1) We're defaulting in UN dues, and 2) We don't want the UN to get that power, because it'll be in competition to us. But it's better for us and it's better for the world if we step down as military dominator.

Section 8 · Oct 6, 2003, 05:25 pm

FA, did I say that I support violent revolution? No. I said that that was an option to some Socialists.

fmadcows · Oct 11, 2003, 06:36 pm

the do not call list is made for the convienence of the people who dont care about the telemarketing bs. so they dont have a job because they annoy the hell out of millions of people, there are many places that they could go and work. people are hiring all over the country.

Section 8 · Oct 11, 2003, 06:38 pm

Ha, were in a job crisis here in the US.

Scribbler1 · Oct 11, 2003, 08:39 pm

I think some of us are missing a couple of big points here regarding the telemarketing industry. First, it's mainly an industry that shouldn't have existed in the first place. The employment argument is weak at its base as these companies were not started to create jobs, but to make the owners money. It used to be called a "Boiler-room operation" in its infancy, where scammers would set up a bank of phones and an auto-dialer in a basement and pitch phony products and money making schemes to unwitting people. Business in general sees the work force as overhead, a necessary evil they have to pay. I liken it to gas in your car, where the car is your business and the gas is the employees. The only reason you buy gas is because you need it to run the car, and if you could buy a cheap car that ran on, say, water, you'd stop buying gas in a heartbeat.
Secondly, and most important, is telemarketers are intrusive. This isn't the town square where you can hand out leaflets to passers-by. *I* pay for that phone in *MY* house and I expect a certain amount of control over who uses it to bother me, as well as the expectation of privacy. If any telemarketing industry supporters worked the night shift and were rudely awakened 3 hours after you went to bed by someone you didn't want to speak with you'd be all for the do not call list pretty fast!
And don't consider using the arguments I've heard before, like just unplug your phone or get caller ID. I don't pay for the phone to unplug it and miss calls I may want to get. You'd forget about the poor downtrodden worker pretty fast if a friend or relative had an emergency and couldn't call you because you unplugged the phone. And forget about caller ID, the phone companies (who are in this too, but like to keep a low profile) charge to block calls from showing up on caller ID equipment so you don't know who the hell is calling anyway.
As for me, if I want something and can afford it, I already have it! I don't need some underpaid, overworked (exploited) High School dropout waking me up to tell me what a great deal he has on timeshares in Florida.

Scribbler1 · Oct 29, 2003, 02:01 am

[quote=Section 8,]As you said the problem with electing members to congress is that they will be forced to reform unless there is a large number of socialists in power. The problem with education is that you need to start young. I'm of course not saying that you need to brainwash kids, that would be like the capitalists. They need to have a fair and balanced education. They need a teacher to teach to them about Socialism and let them make their own decision. After the education step is completed you have three main options: A. Mass strike; peaceful protest. B. Armed Revolution. C. A mix between the two.[/QUOTE

8, not so much socialists, but ANYONE independent from the single party which runs this country. The Republicrats own this country and they keep their power by lying to the sheep and whoring themselves to big money. Each party has about half of the pie and since half is better than, say, a third, both sides will be damned if they give any up.
as for A (strike/protest). It's a good idea but you need a majority of people for that, but that wont happen because it might make a lot of them miss this week's "Friends" or "NYPD Blue" episode.
B (armed revolt) is right out. It's ancient thinking and won't work. First of all, who here owns a gun, and knows how to use it well? Secondly, if our military obeys it's leaders, who among us thinks your old hunting rifle will be a match for a modern missile which can practically ring your doorbell before blowing your house up? And finally, if history is any teacher, any sufficiently motivated group who wins an armed revolution seems destined to be as bad or worse than the previous regime. And C? Forget it! Who the hell in his right mind could possibly support peaceful protest AND armed conflict at the same time??
I agree that education and the enablement of free thought is the start and that is with the children. Unfortunately, I believe the sheep have most of the children and they wouldn't touch a forum like this with a ten-foot pole, assuming they could find it on the web in the first place.

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an asassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment" ..Robert Maynard Hutchins (1954)

How the hell did this get on the "do not call list" thread? Sorry, but I was compelled to respond to Section 8.

Oct 5, 2003, 12:43 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I'm all for arming the blue helmets to the teeth in their quest to uphold international human rights, but I'm never in my life going to fight for a Bush. Duplicous? I think not. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 5, 2003, 10:42 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	You forget two things, FA - 1) We're defaulting in UN dues, and 2) We don't want the UN to get that power, because it'll be in competition to us. But it's better for us and it's better for the world if we step down as military dominator. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 11, 2003, 06:36 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
fmadcows vishbone Location: Michigan USA Posts: 6	the do not call list is made for the convienence of the people who dont care about the telemarketing bs. so they dont have a job because they annoy the hell out of millions of people, there are many places that they could go and work. people are hiring all over the country. g o o d . c l e a n . f u n . i s . b o r i n g

Oct 11, 2003, 08:39 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	I think some of us are missing a couple of big points here regarding the telemarketing industry. First, it's mainly an industry that shouldn't have existed in the first place. The employment argument is weak at its base as these companies were not started to create jobs, but to make the owners money. It used to be called a "Boiler-room operation" in its infancy, where scammers would set up a bank of phones and an auto-dialer in a basement and pitch phony products and money making schemes to unwitting people. Business in general sees the work force as overhead, a necessary evil they have to pay. I liken it to gas in your car, where the car is your business and the gas is the employees. The only reason you buy gas is because you need it to run the car, and if you could buy a cheap car that ran on, say, water, you'd stop buying gas in a heartbeat. Secondly, and most important, is telemarketers are intrusive. This isn't the town square where you can hand out leaflets to passers-by. I pay for that phone in MY house and I expect a certain amount of control over who uses it to bother me, as well as the expectation of privacy. If any telemarketing industry supporters worked the night shift and were rudely awakened 3 hours after you went to bed by someone you didn't want to speak with you'd be all for the do not call list pretty fast! And don't consider using the arguments I've heard before, like just unplug your phone or get caller ID. I don't pay for the phone to unplug it and miss calls I may want to get. You'd forget about the poor downtrodden worker pretty fast if a friend or relative had an emergency and couldn't call you because you unplugged the phone. And forget about caller ID, the phone companies (who are in this too, but like to keep a low profile) charge to block calls from showing up on caller ID equipment so you don't know who the hell is calling anyway. As for me, if I want something and can afford it, I already have it! I don't need some underpaid, overworked (exploited) High School dropout waking me up to tell me what a great deal he has on timeshares in Florida. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Oct 29, 2003, 02:01 am	#31 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	[quote=Section 8,]As you said the problem with electing members to congress is that they will be forced to reform unless there is a large number of socialists in power. The problem with education is that you need to start young. I'm of course not saying that you need to brainwash kids, that would be like the capitalists. They need to have a fair and balanced education. They need a teacher to teach to them about Socialism and let them make their own decision. After the education step is completed you have three main options: A. Mass strike; peaceful protest. B. Armed Revolution. C. A mix between the two.[/QUOTE 8, not so much socialists, but ANYONE independent from the single party which runs this country. The Republicrats own this country and they keep their power by lying to the sheep and whoring themselves to big money. Each party has about half of the pie and since half is better than, say, a third, both sides will be damned if they give any up. as for A (strike/protest). It's a good idea but you need a majority of people for that, but that wont happen because it might make a lot of them miss this week's "Friends" or "NYPD Blue" episode. B (armed revolt) is right out. It's ancient thinking and won't work. First of all, who here owns a gun, and knows how to use it well? Secondly, if our military obeys it's leaders, who among us thinks your old hunting rifle will be a match for a modern missile which can practically ring your doorbell before blowing your house up? And finally, if history is any teacher, any sufficiently motivated group who wins an armed revolution seems destined to be as bad or worse than the previous regime. And C? Forget it! Who the hell in his right mind could possibly support peaceful protest AND armed conflict at the same time?? I agree that education and the enablement of free thought is the start and that is with the children. Unfortunately, I believe the sheep have most of the children and they wouldn't touch a forum like this with a ten-foot pole, assuming they could find it on the web in the first place. "The death of democracy is not likely to be an asassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment" ..Robert Maynard Hutchins (1954) How the hell did this get on the "do not call list" thread? Sorry, but I was compelled to respond to Section 8. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Oct 3, 2003, 11:16 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	As you said, we should stop spending money on killing, and more on education.

Oct 4, 2003, 02:13 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Lets see Section 8, your a Pacifist and you support Socialists who would want a violent revolution, so I draw from that, as long as you don't get hurt in any way, or be forced to hurt anyone, you would be quite comfortable living in a post revolution country, provided you never saw any violence to object to. not that you would dare.

Oct 6, 2003, 05:25 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	FA, did I say that I support violent revolution? No. I said that that was an option to some Socialists.

Oct 11, 2003, 06:38 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Ha, were in a job crisis here in the US.