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

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 29, 2003, 10:34 pm

One more semester down, three more to go...

Interesting to read where this went while I was away. Everyone claims they do not actually hate the rich. AK claims I am making a logical fallicy, which is interesting because it is incomplete w/o his input, so apparently he is attributing to me the power to read his mind. :) Then someone posts that is brave enough to venture an opinion and she gets jumped. But I am not surprised, there are many here that are only skilled enough to work destruction because creation takes too much work.

Anyone else brave enough to post a position that requires a stand???

RebelWithanAK · Oct 29, 2003, 11:25 pm

AK says you set up a straw man, which is obvious in its own right. And I've noticed that the only "real" opinions you acknowledge happen to be complimentary with your own...

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 30, 2003, 12:23 am

A logical fallicy demands a conclusion, I failed to post a conclusion, so how can it be a logical fallicy? Please explain or shut up. Because the way I see it you are simply avoiding the question.

castille · Oct 31, 2003, 08:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
But none of those countries you call communist actually are. Authoritarian, yes, totalitarian, that too. But communist? Nope, none of them meet even the basic requirements of being communist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So why do the Communist protestors support them?

Section 8 · Oct 31, 2003, 09:20 am

We do? Thanks for deciding my beliefs for me.

G. Adams · Oct 31, 2003, 09:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
But none of those countries you call communist actually are. Authoritarian, yes, totalitarian, that too. But communist? Nope, none of them meet even the basic requirements of being communist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So why do the Communist protestors support them?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The people who support those regimes are uninformed kids. Once they start digging around they will see that those regimes had little in common with actual communism.

Or it could be that your misportraying them. I've defended some of the USSR's actions, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, not because I agree with the USSR as a whole, but in that situation they were doing no different from the USA, and at least Kruschev was man enough to know when to step out of the ring, unlike Kennedy.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 31, 2003, 11:29 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,)
A logical fallicy demands a conclusion, I failed to post a conclusion, so how can it be a logical fallicy? Please explain or shut up. Because the way I see it you are simply avoiding the question.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,)
It cannot be because they do not work, because on the average they put more time into managing their assests than the average person does working.

It cannot be because they are happier, they have a higher suicide rate, and are generally less happy than the average person.

It cannot be because they are stealing your money, since they invest and money not in someones pocket does not affect anyone's income.

It cannot be because they take all the women, figure you can figure that one out.

So why?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Because you refute claims that we didn't make, you ninny; and concluding that we're wrong by them. And I will not shut up.

castille · Nov 1, 2003, 09:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

The people who support those regimes are uninformed kids. Once they start digging around they will see that those regimes had little in common with actual communism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So every Communist protestor is an "uninformed kid"?

I've seen quite a lot of Soviet flags at protest rallies over here....

Section 8 · Nov 1, 2003, 09:58 pm

No, I'm not an uniformed kid. Usually those who wave soviet flags just want to be labeled radicals, and know nothing about communism.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 2, 2003, 12:25 am

Castille. Let's take "Some protesters are Communist" and "Some Communists are Stalinists." Please tell me how you could possibly come to the logical conclusion that "All protesters are Stalinists"?

G. Adams · Nov 2, 2003, 10:03 am

Man I would hate to be in the dock with Castille on the jury if thats how he thinks. You come from a dangerous neighbourhood, therefore you are dangerous, guilty your honour.

Yeah, crappy post but I'm here to declare that at least for a few hours, I am finally the no.1 poster. :)

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Nov 3, 2003, 01:21 am

Rebel
I see you revert to a child that has to call names because you know you cannot back that ridiculous claim. Since that was the first post demanding a refute, how can it be a logical fallicy?

RebelWithanAK · Nov 3, 2003, 12:07 pm

It's a god damned refutation in and of itself. It's baiting, pure and simple. The fact that you deny that now just makes it all the more aggravating to try and speak to you.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Nov 6, 2003, 08:45 pm

I understand now, if you curse, scream, namecall, and cry enough the logic fairy will make it all make sense... grow up.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 6, 2003, 09:35 pm

Are you blind, man? Are you fuckin' blind? Can you not see the post in front of you, written by you, presumably involving thought from you, clearly expressing a refutation of claims nobody has made? When was the last time you saw an optometrist? It's time for another visit!

G. Adams · Nov 7, 2003, 07:24 am

Don't get worked up about him rebel, i think he's like blasto, just enjoys pissing people off.

castille · Nov 7, 2003, 07:50 am

I never said all Communists are Stalinists. I asked if you believe every protestor is an uninformed kid.

Try not to twist words around....we don't live in Stalinist Russia you know.

indierockboy · Nov 20, 2003, 03:28 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,)
Rebel
I see you revert to a child that has to call names because you know you cannot back that ridiculous claim. Since that was the first post demanding a refute, how can it be a logical fallicy?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

you told him to shut up, and make it a point to openly mock him when you feel you are right. how is he any more of a child than you? how are you any more mature?

Scribbler1 · Nov 20, 2003, 01:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (xm.bretton,)
I dont dislike the rich. Actually, I dont dislike any class... I dislike people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I couldn't agree more. No one who wants to be rich can logically hate them. Personally, I'd love to be rich.
My only gripe is what some of them DO with their riches, not their wealth itself. Bill Gates, for example, gives millions to charity all the time, and he could practically buy the whole country. But when a multi-zillionaire funnels money to a politician, then we're talking buying of power, and that's where I part company with people who don't have a problem with the rich.

On the whole, though, I despise people. At least most of them.

Scribbler1 · Nov 20, 2003, 01:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Why is it constantly brought up that the poor are starving in debates like these? People on welfare eat better than I am right now. -_- They're far from starving.

The rich got where they were by hard work - education and dedication. These days there's no excuse for someone to be working jobs at Sears in the long-term unless they had kids early on or dropped/flunked out of highschool for their own reasons.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not always. I understand J. Paul Getty was given a million dollars for his 21st birthday. Not a bad start. This also includes televangelists like Robertson and Swaggart, who got rich from donations, much of which comes from people who can scarcely afford it.

Oct 29, 2003, 10:34 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	One more semester down, three more to go... Interesting to read where this went while I was away. Everyone claims they do not actually hate the rich. AK claims I am making a logical fallicy, which is interesting because it is incomplete w/o his input, so apparently he is attributing to me the power to read his mind. :) Then someone posts that is brave enough to venture an opinion and she gets jumped. But I am not surprised, there are many here that are only skilled enough to work destruction because creation takes too much work. Anyone else brave enough to post a position that requires a stand??? Logical Fallicies Link

Oct 29, 2003, 11:25 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	AK says you set up a straw man, which is obvious in its own right. And I've noticed that the only "real" opinions you acknowledge happen to be complimentary with your own... . . . 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 30, 2003, 12:23 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	A logical fallicy demands a conclusion, I failed to post a conclusion, so how can it be a logical fallicy? Please explain or shut up. Because the way I see it you are simply avoiding the question. Logical Fallicies Link

Oct 31, 2003, 08:18 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) But none of those countries you call communist actually are. Authoritarian, yes, totalitarian, that too. But communist? Nope, none of them meet even the basic requirements of being communist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So why do the Communist protestors support them? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Oct 31, 2003, 09:46 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) But none of those countries you call communist actually are. Authoritarian, yes, totalitarian, that too. But communist? Nope, none of them meet even the basic requirements of being communist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So why do the Communist protestors support them?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The people who support those regimes are uninformed kids. Once they start digging around they will see that those regimes had little in common with actual communism. Or it could be that your misportraying them. I've defended some of the USSR's actions, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, not because I agree with the USSR as a whole, but in that situation they were doing no different from the USA, and at least Kruschev was man enough to know when to step out of the ring, unlike Kennedy. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 31, 2003, 09:20 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	We do? Thanks for deciding my beliefs for me.

Oct 31, 2003, 11:29 am	#47 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,) A logical fallicy demands a conclusion, I failed to post a conclusion, so how can it be a logical fallicy? Please explain or shut up. Because the way I see it you are simply avoiding the question.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'></span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,) It cannot be because they do not work, because on the average they put more time into managing their assests than the average person does working. It cannot be because they are happier, they have a higher suicide rate, and are generally less happy than the average person. It cannot be because they are stealing your money, since they invest and money not in someones pocket does not affect anyone's income. It cannot be because they take all the women, figure you can figure that one out. So why?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Because you refute claims that we didn't make, you ninny; and concluding that we're wrong by them. And I will not shut up. . . . 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.

Nov 1, 2003, 09:18 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) The people who support those regimes are uninformed kids. Once they start digging around they will see that those regimes had little in common with actual communism.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So every Communist protestor is an "uninformed kid"? I've seen quite a lot of Soviet flags at protest rallies over here.... Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 1, 2003, 09:58 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	No, I'm not an uniformed kid. Usually those who wave soviet flags just want to be labeled radicals, and know nothing about communism.

Nov 2, 2003, 12:25 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Castille. Let's take "Some protesters are Communist" and "Some Communists are Stalinists." Please tell me how you could possibly come to the logical conclusion that "All protesters are Stalinists"? . . . 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.

Nov 2, 2003, 10:03 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Man I would hate to be in the dock with Castille on the jury if thats how he thinks. You come from a dangerous neighbourhood, therefore you are dangerous, guilty your honour. Yeah, crappy post but I'm here to declare that at least for a few hours, I am finally the no.1 poster. :) Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 3, 2003, 01:21 am	#52 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Rebel I see you revert to a child that has to call names because you know you cannot back that ridiculous claim. Since that was the first post demanding a refute, how can it be a logical fallicy? Logical Fallicies Link

Nov 3, 2003, 12:07 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	It's a god damned refutation in and of itself. It's baiting, pure and simple. The fact that you deny that now just makes it all the more aggravating to try and speak to you. . . . 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.

Nov 6, 2003, 08:45 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I understand now, if you curse, scream, namecall, and cry enough the logic fairy will make it all make sense... grow up. Logical Fallicies Link

Nov 6, 2003, 09:35 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Are you blind, man? Are you fuckin' blind? Can you not see the post in front of you, written by you, presumably involving thought from you, clearly expressing a refutation of claims nobody has made? When was the last time you saw an optometrist? It's time for another visit! . . . 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.

Nov 7, 2003, 07:24 am	#56 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Don't get worked up about him rebel, i think he's like blasto, just enjoys pissing people off. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 7, 2003, 07:50 am	#57 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	I never said all Communists are Stalinists. I asked if you believe every protestor is an uninformed kid. Try not to twist words around....we don't live in Stalinist Russia you know. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 20, 2003, 03:28 am	#58 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (GreatWyrm of Babylon,) Rebel I see you revert to a child that has to call names because you know you cannot back that ridiculous claim. Since that was the first post demanding a refute, how can it be a logical fallicy?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> you told him to shut up, and make it a point to openly mock him when you feel you are right. how is he any more of a child than you? how are you any more mature? http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 20, 2003, 01:24 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (xm.bretton,) I dont dislike the rich. Actually, I dont dislike any class... I dislike people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I couldn't agree more. No one who wants to be rich can logically hate them. Personally, I'd love to be rich. My only gripe is what some of them DO with their riches, not their wealth itself. Bill Gates, for example, gives millions to charity all the time, and he could practically buy the whole country. But when a multi-zillionaire funnels money to a politician, then we're talking buying of power, and that's where I part company with people who don't have a problem with the rich. On the whole, though, I despise people. At least most of them. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Nov 20, 2003, 01:30 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Why is it constantly brought up that the poor are starving in debates like these? People on welfare eat better than I am right now. -_- They're far from starving. The rich got where they were by hard work - education and dedication. These days there's no excuse for someone to be working jobs at Sears in the long-term unless they had kids early on or dropped/flunked out of highschool for their own reasons.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not always. I understand J. Paul Getty was given a million dollars for his 21st birthday. Not a bad start. This also includes televangelists like Robertson and Swaggart, who got rich from donations, much of which comes from people who can scarcely afford it. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.