Good article from Dennis Prager which every socialist zealot
should read, and ponder on how the idea is so often the opposite
of the reality, and how they won't ever admit such a simple
fact.
SOCIALISM KILLS-
In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly
French men and women died of heat stroke. It is important to
note this is not nearly the scandal in France that it would be
in America. In fact, upon hearing the news, French president
Jacques Chirac decided to stay on vacation in Quebec, Canada.
Why not? Because, in the words of British historian Paul
Johnson, the French like most Europeans, and like most left-
thinking people anywhere love ideas more than people. The
average educated European can intelligently discuss Hegel or
Matisse almost as well as the average educated American who
probably never heard of Hegel or Matisse can discuss real
estate or sports.
Europe has given the world Marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism,
racism and socialism, all rotten ideas that have caused
immeasurable human suffering. But for Europeans and their
ideological twins on the American left and at universities,
ideas are not judged by their ability to ameliorate human
suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and apparent
profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good
that's unromantic American pragmatism it is good because it
sounds good.
Eleven thousand unnecessary deaths occurred in France largely
because socialism inevitably breeds hedonism, selfishness and
callousness.
As ironic as it may seem, but the fact is that socialism i.e.,
cradle-to-grave state welfare makes people worse.
First, the socialist mind loathes work. In France, the legal
length of the work week is 35 hours. Working hard to make more
money is an American value that is held in contempt by the Left.
The New York Times recently featured an article describing the
death of the Protestant work ethic in secular, socialist Europe
and the thriving of that ethic in America and that this
explains the far greater productivity and affluence of America.
The Judeo-Christian tradition values work; secularism doesn't.
And as we all know from watching our children, people with a lot
of time on their hands have character problems.
Second, socialism values equality more than liberty. The
Norwegian government recently passed a law that the boards of
its largest corporations must be half female. The California
left the Democratic Party just passed a law that no employer
may fire a male employee who wears women's clothing at work.
Because the Left holds liberty (except sexual liberty) in lower
esteem, Europe has raised a generation that does not value
liberty nearly as much Americans do (though we're getting
there).
Third, socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other
people. The state will why should you? If people in France and
elsewhere in Europe take less care of their aging parents, it is
because they are taught from childhood to allow others i.e.,
the state to take care of everybody. Just as we saw in America
when the state stepped in to take care of women who had children
without a husband, these women increasingly refused to marry and
felt little compunction about having more babies out of wedlock.
The bigger the government, the worse the people.
Fourth, as a result of this socialist mindset, people in
socialist countries give little charity, while Americans give
vast amounts (just as Americans in conservative states give more
charity per capita than people in liberal ones).
Fifth, the larger the state, the more callous it becomes.
Twentieth-century evil was made possible in large measure by the
bureaucratic mentality the type of person who is merely a cog
in huge governmental machine, collectively all-powerful but
individually powerless to do anything except take and execute
orders. The bigger the state, the colder its heart. (It is also
true that the bigger the corporation, the more callous its
heart. But unlike the state, corporations have competition and
have no police powers.)
As I wrote in a previous column, the future of the world is
either European secular socialism, Islamic totalitarianism or
the unique American combination of Judeo-Christian religiosity
and political and economic liberty.
Few Americans are attracted to the second possibility, but vast
numbers look to Europe as a model. One hopes that the next time
they do, they will note the 11,000 elderly dead in France. But
don't bet on it.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 21:11:08 +1000
Redbaiter wrote:
> Good article from Dennis Prager which every socialist zealot
> should read, and ponder on how the idea is so often the opposite
> of the reality, and how they won't ever admit such a simple
> fact.
>
> SOCIALISM KILLS-
>
> In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly
> French men and women died of heat stroke. It is important to
> note this is not nearly the scandal in France that it would be
> in America. In fact, upon hearing the news, French president
> Jacques Chirac decided to stay on vacation in Quebec, Canada.
>
> Why not? Because, in the words of British historian Paul
> Johnson, the French like most Europeans, and like most left-
> thinking people anywhere love ideas more than people. The
> average educated European can intelligently discuss Hegel or
> Matisse almost as well as the average educated American who
> probably never heard of Hegel or Matisse can discuss real
> estate or sports.
>
> Europe has given the world Marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism,
> racism and socialism, all rotten ideas that have caused
> immeasurable human suffering. But for Europeans and their
> ideological twins on the American left and at universities,
> ideas are not judged by their ability to ameliorate human
> suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and apparent
> profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good
> that's unromantic American pragmatism it is good because it
> sounds good.
>
> Eleven thousand unnecessary deaths occurred in France largely
> because socialism inevitably breeds hedonism, selfishness and
> callousness.
>
> As ironic as it may seem, but the fact is that socialism i.e.,
> cradle-to-grave state welfare makes people worse.
>
> First, the socialist mind loathes work. In France, the legal
> length of the work week is 35 hours. Working hard to make more
> money is an American value that is held in contempt by the Left.
> The New York Times recently featured an article describing the
> death of the Protestant work ethic in secular, socialist Europe
> and the thriving of that ethic in America and that this
> explains the far greater productivity and affluence of America.
> The Judeo-Christian tradition values work; secularism doesn't.
> And as we all know from watching our children, people with a lot
> of time on their hands have character problems.
>
> Second, socialism values equality more than liberty. The
> Norwegian government recently passed a law that the boards of
> its largest corporations must be half female. The California
> left the Democratic Party just passed a law that no employer
> may fire a male employee who wears women's clothing at work.
> Because the Left holds liberty (except sexual liberty) in lower
> esteem, Europe has raised a generation that does not value
> liberty nearly as much Americans do (though we're getting
> there).
>
> Third, socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other
> people. The state will why should you? If people in France and
> elsewhere in Europe take less care of their aging parents, it is
> because they are taught from childhood to allow others i.e.,
> the state to take care of everybody. Just as we saw in America
> when the state stepped in to take care of women who had children
> without a husband, these women increasingly refused to marry and
> felt little compunction about having more babies out of wedlock.
> The bigger the government, the worse the people.
>
> Fourth, as a result of this socialist mindset, people in
> socialist countries give little charity, while Americans give
> vast amounts (just as Americans in conservative states give more
> charity per capita than people in liberal ones).
>
> Fifth, the larger the state, the more callous it becomes.
> Twentieth-century evil was made possible in large measure by the
> bureaucratic mentality the type of person who is merely a cog
> in huge governmental machine, collectively all-powerful but
> individually powerless to do anything except take and execute
> orders. The bigger the state, the colder its heart. (It is also
> true that the bigger the corporation, the more callous its
> heart. But unlike the state, corporations have competition and
> have no police powers.)
>
> As I wrote in a previous column, the future of the world is
> either European secular socialism, Islamic totalitarianism or
> the unique American combination of Judeo-Christian religiosity
> and political and economic liberty.
>
> Few Americans are attracted to the second possibility, but vast
> numbers look to Europe as a model. One hopes that the next time
> they do, they will note the 11,000 elderly dead in France. But
> don't bet on it.
Good article. He did forget to give Europe its proper credit for raising
religious genocide to an artform for the roughly 1000 years up to about
WW1 though.
Interesting about Norway and its Board quota. Why do govts worship at
the alter of demographic mirroring? Let's think about it; if you want
your society's most important institutions to thrive, you really want
them stuffed with the best and brightest, regardless of demographic
annotations. Assuming intelligence/ability is normally distributed (i.e.
bell-curve) through society, mirroring normal demographics is going to
give you "average" not excellent.
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f545c27$1@no-spam
>
> Europe has given the world Marxism, communism,
>fascism, Nazism, racism and socialism
The firsts two are Jewish ideas the latter four are a response to it.
The Arabs new racism and the Atlantic slave trade was American (Although
barely 2% of Southerners ever owned a slave)
but that's OK only racism against jews count to a kept neo-con lackey like
Praeger.
> all rotten ideas that have caused
> immeasurable human suffering. But for Europeans and their
> ideological twins on the American left and at universities,
> ideas are not judged by their ability to ameliorate human
> suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and apparent
> profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good -
> that's unromantic American pragmatism - it is good because it
> sounds good.
>
> Eleven thousand unnecessary deaths occurred in France largely
> because socialism inevitably breeds hedonism, selfishness and
> callousness.
True.
>
> As ironic as it may seem, but the fact is that socialism - i.e.,
> cradle-to-grave state welfare - makes people worse.
>
> First, the socialist mind loathes work. In France, the legal
> length of the work week is 35 hours. Working hard to make more
> money is an American value that is held in contempt by the Left.
> The New York Times recently featured an article describing the
> death of the Protestant work ethic in secular, socialist Europe
> and the thriving of that ethic in America - and that this
> explains the far greater productivity and affluence of America.
> The Judeo-Christian tradition values work; secularism doesn't.
> And as we all know from watching our children, people with a lot
> of time on their hands have character problems.
>
> Second, socialism values equality more than liberty. The
> Norwegian government recently passed a law that the boards of
> its largest corporations must be half female. The California
> left - the Democratic Party - just passed a law that no employer
> may fire a male employee who wears women's clothing at work.
> Because the Left holds liberty (except sexual liberty) in lower
> esteem, Europe has raised a generation that does not value
> liberty nearly as much Americans do (though we're getting
> there).
True
>
> Third, socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other
> people. The state will - why should you? If people in France and
> elsewhere in Europe take less care of their aging parents, it is
> because they are taught from childhood to allow others - i.e.,
> the state - to take care of everybody. Just as we saw in America
> when the state stepped in to take care of women who had children
> without a husband, these women increasingly refused to marry and
> felt little compunction about having more babies out of wedlock.
> The bigger the government, the worse the people.
>
> Fourth, as a result of this socialist mindset, people in
> socialist countries give little charity, while Americans give
> vast amounts (just as Americans in conservative states give more
> charity per capita than people in liberal ones).
>
> Fifth, the larger the state, the more callous it becomes.
> Twentieth-century evil was made possible in large measure by the
> bureaucratic mentality - the type of person who is merely a cog
> in huge governmental machine, collectively all-powerful but
> individually powerless to do anything except take and execute
> orders. The bigger the state, the colder its heart. (It is also
> true that the bigger the corporation, the more callous its
> heart. But unlike the state, corporations have competition and
> have no police powers.)
>
> As I wrote in a previous column, the future of the world is
> either European secular socialism, Islamic totalitarianism or
> the unique American combination of Judeo-Christian religiosity
> and political and economic liberty.
The USA is in decay. The solid ideas of the founding fathers are perverted.
Unlike the China form instance the U.S.'s disparate mix of race and cultures
has left it without a coherent heritage and thus a destining project worth
dying for. This makes it not a nation in the European sense, but simply une
symbiose ιtatico-entrepreneuriale. Because such an entity is likely to fly
apart if challenged by a determined enemy, in the great cataclysms to come
it will be Europe (and Russia), not the U.S.,
>
> Few Americans are attracted to the second possibility, but vast
> numbers look to Europe as a model. One hopes that the next time
> they do, they will note the 11,000 elderly dead in France. But
> don't bet on it.
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
> SOCIALISM KILLS-
>
> In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly
> French men and women died of heat stroke.
Wow, Red has even found a way of blaming the commies for the weather now.
Amazing.
Joe.
In article <bj3ujq$m1u$1@no-spam>, "Bob Howard" <no@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f545c27$1@no-spam
>Socialism not only kills people literally but worse it kills the human
>spirit.
>I am reading a book at the moment about the recent history of Cuba with a
>short rundown on it's history pre Castro. Cuba's economy was building up. It
>had it's fair share of entrepreneurial people. Spanish speaking Europeans
>went there because of the good economic environment. The country as a whole
>was making money which was invested in infrastructure. That was in spite of
>sleazy dictators who at least didn't interfere with it's capitalist economy.
>
>Castro took over, murdered his opponemnts and installed communism.
Note .. communism and socialism are very different animals. Suggest some
background reading might be useful before blathering :)
Thanks
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 20:24:14 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>
>First, the socialist mind loathes work. In France, the legal
>length of the work week is 35 hours.
>
Heh! That's not because they are socialists. It's because the French
are lazy b*stards!
>
> Working hard to make more money is an American value that is
> held in contempt by the Left.
>
Then you won't like this article:
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2002/092002/09022002/694057
or this
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6493667.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
or hundreds more like it.
>
>The New York Times recently featured an article describing the
>death of the Protestant work ethic in secular, socialist Europe
>and the thriving of that ethic in America and that this
>explains the far greater productivity and affluence of America.
>
Look at the above articles. They *PROVE* otherwise. They also prove
that the article you quote, Pinky, is a load of bullshit.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Enkidu says...
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 20:24:14 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >First, the socialist mind loathes work. In France, the legal
> >length of the work week is 35 hours.
> >
> Heh! That's not because they are socialists. It's because the French
> are lazy b*stards!
> >
> > Working hard to make more money is an American value that is
> > held in contempt by the Left.
> >
> Then you won't like this article:
>
> http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2002/092002/09022002/694057
>
> or this
>
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6493667.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
>
> or hundreds more like it.
> >
> >The New York Times recently featured an article describing the
> >death of the Protestant work ethic in secular, socialist Europe
> >and the thriving of that ethic in America and that this
> >explains the far greater productivity and affluence of America.
> >
> Look at the above articles. They *PROVE* otherwise. They also prove
> that the article you quote, Pinky, is a load of bullshit.
>
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......
What the fuck do you want me to do Cliff, do a search for some
like two bit French journalists with equally unsubstantiated
countering views..??
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
"Joe Citizen" <nowhere@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lM%4b.135161$JA5.3210151@no-spam
> > SOCIALISM KILLS-
> >
> > In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly
> > French men and women died of heat stroke.
>
> Wow, Red has even found a way of blaming the commies for the weather now.
> Amazing.
>
> Joe.
>
Actually, Red doesn't like the French Socialist system where old people live
in their own homes which had become to hot in the heatwave. He prefers the
American system wher old people live on the streets of New York and freeze
to dead every winter.
bruce.sinclair@no-spam (Bruce Sinclair) wrote in message news:<5kf5b.880$cg.128367@no-spam>...
> In article <bj3ujq$m1u$1@no-spam>, "Bob Howard" <no@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> >"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:3f545c27$1@no-spam
> >Socialism not only kills people literally but worse it kills the human
> >spirit.
> >I am reading a book at the moment about the recent history of Cuba with a
> >short rundown on it's history pre Castro. Cuba's economy was building up. It
> >had it's fair share of entrepreneurial people. Spanish speaking Europeans
> >went there because of the good economic environment. The country as a whole
> >was making money which was invested in infrastructure. That was in spite of
> >sleazy dictators who at least didn't interfere with it's capitalist economy.
> >
> >Castro took over, murdered his opponemnts and installed communism.
>
> Note .. communism and socialism are very different animals. Suggest some
> background reading might be useful before blathering :)
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
Dream on Bruce
Socialism is the beginning of communism and democracy is the road
taking us there. eg the communist Greens got to the Beehive and now
influence government policy through democracy, superdemocracy is the
superhighway to communism.
The alternative to democracy is "freedom"
Freedom from initiated force or threatened initiated force or fraud.
What one man may NOT do to another, freedom means, then neither can a
"mob" of man do it either.
If the state forbids theft and threats of violence between
individuals, then neither can the state (a mob of man) threaten
violence upon individuals.
Freedom = absense of aggression
socialism = beginning of communism
democracy = road from socialism to communism
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:37:08 +1200, "Bob Howard"
<no@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3f545c27$1@no-spam
>
>Socialism not only kills people literally but worse it kills the human
>spirit.
>
>I am reading a book at the moment about the recent history of Cuba with a
>short rundown on it's history pre Castro. Cuba's economy was building up. It
>had it's fair share of entrepreneurial people. Spanish speaking Europeans
>went there because of the good economic environment. The country as a whole
>was making money which was invested in infrastructure. That was in spite of
>sleazy dictators who at least didn't interfere with it's capitalist economy.
But who were totally corrupt. Doesn't that matter to you Bob?
>
>Castro took over, murdered his opponemnts and installed communism.
Batista fled Cuba 1 Jan 1959. In the previous two years his
forces murdered 20,000 and injured and jailed many thousands
more.
>The first
>casualty was the entrepreneurial spirit of the people. Businesses were
>confiscated and the owners sent to work on collective farms and the like.
It would be pretty difficult to send the owners of the most
significant firms to collective farms - they were too busy
drawing their dividends in the USA.
>By
>our standards Cuba is now a basket case.
>
With, as I understand it, a pretty good public health system and
education system.
>We should be very wary of socialism even a benign socialism such as we have
>here.
We should also beware of biased reporting without knowing its
provenance. Mine is the article on Cuba in Collier's
Encyclopedia, that well-known left-wing publication produced by
the MacMillan Educational Company of New York.
And your's is, Bob?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
H.Dickmann says...
>
> "Joe Citizen" <nowhere@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:lM%4b.135161$JA5.3210151@no-spam
> > > SOCIALISM KILLS-
> > >
> > > In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly
> > > French men and women died of heat stroke.
> >
> > Wow, Red has even found a way of blaming the commies for the weather now.
> > Amazing.
> >
> > Joe.
> >
> Actually, Red doesn't like the French Socialist system where old people live
> in their own homes which had become to hot in the heatwave. He prefers the
> American system wher old people live on the streets of New York and freeze
> to dead every winter.
>
Barf....
The "homeless"....!!!
The no argument left's favourite issue.
Anybody who is homeless in the US is that way because they
choose to be.
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 22:19:11 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>Enkidu says...
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 20:24:14 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>> >
>> >First, the socialist mind loathes work. In France, the legal
>> >length of the work week is 35 hours.
>> >
>> Heh! That's not because they are socialists. It's because the French
>> are lazy b*stards!
>> >
>> > Working hard to make more money is an American value that is
>> > held in contempt by the Left.
>> >
>> Then you won't like this article:
>>
>> http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2002/092002/09022002/694057
>>
>> or this
>>
>> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/6493667.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
>>
>> or hundreds more like it.
>> >
>> >The New York Times recently featured an article describing the
>> >death of the Protestant work ethic in secular, socialist Europe
>> >and the thriving of that ethic in America and that this
>> >explains the far greater productivity and affluence of America.
>> >
>> Look at the above articles. They *PROVE* otherwise. They also prove
>> that the article you quote, Pinky, is a load of bullshit.
>>
>Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn......
>
>What the fuck do you want me to do Cliff, do a search for some
>like two bit French journalists with equally unsubstantiated
>countering views..??
>
Those articles had numbers in - facts. Now I know you wouldn't know a
fact if it bit you on the bum, but just compare those two articles
with the bullshit that you post and quote. Yours are all opinion - no
numbers at all. Those two articles I pointed to are full of facts -
plenty of numbers. Since there are numbers they can be verified. So
basically you had no recourse except to bluster and fluster like you
always do in the face of facts.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Enkidu says...
> Since there are numbers they can be verified. So
> basically you had no recourse except to bluster and fluster like you
> always do in the face of facts.
> Cheers,
>
Facts..??
You... dare to mention facts???
The last discussion I had with you was a total waste of my time
because of your dodging and obfuscation.
You didn't even have the spine to offer an opinion let alone a
fact..
Your behaviour was that of an evasive child.
I resolved never to waste any more time with you and your
immature game playing...
You're just another so typical no argument deranged and
psychotic leftist..
Fuck off with your outrageous hypocrisy...
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:07:51 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>Enkidu says...
>
>> Since there are numbers they can be verified. So
>> basically you had no recourse except to bluster and fluster like you
>> always do in the face of facts.
>> Cheers,
>>
>Facts..??
>
>You... dare to mention facts???
>
>The last discussion I had with you was a total waste of my time
>because of your dodging and obfuscation.
>
>You didn't even have the spine to offer an opinion let alone a
>fact..
>
If you recall, in the incident that you mentioned, I offered to post
facts, *IF* you would do it first. Asked you a question first which
you didn't answer. You didn't answer, so I didn't yours. Pretty petty,
I agree, but it is exactly the same technique that YOU have previously
used.
But back to the presnet. This is Pinky Tactic #37 - change the subject
and hope that no one notices.
However, I did notice. You didn't address the fact that all your
"arguments" are mere statements of opinions. However facts, such as
are presented in the articles I referenced are foreign to you, and all
you can do is bluster, try to change the subject and insult whoever
you are in "discussion" with.
>
>Your behaviour was that of an evasive child.
>
Keep proving me right, Pinky!
>
>I resolved never to waste any more time with you and your
>immature game playing...
>
Yeah, yeah, so what's THIS post about then?
>
>You're just another so typical no argument deranged and
>psychotic leftist..
>
>Fuck off with your outrageous hypocrisy...
>
That's rich, that's really rich...
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vj4elv4rjcc5a8kl05n58hcffebco14pae@no-spam>...
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:07:51 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >Enkidu says...
> >
>
> However, I did notice. You didn't address the fact that all your
> "arguments" are mere statements of opinions. However facts, such as
> are presented in the articles I referenced are foreign to you, and all
> you can do is bluster, try to change the subject and insult whoever
> you are in "discussion" with.
Facts (pause) facts (pause) facts Cliff? what are "facts" Cliff, it is
you who claims "truth is in the eye of the beholder" which makes
"facts" a worthless word, surely.
> >
> >Your behaviour was that of an evasive child.
> >
> Keep proving me right, Pinky!
> >
> >I resolved never to waste any more time with you and your
> >immature game playing...
> >
> Yeah, yeah, so what's THIS post about then?
> >
> >You're just another so typical no argument deranged and
> >psychotic leftist..
> >
> >Fuck off with your outrageous hypocrisy...
> >
> That's rich, that's really rich...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
> --
>
> The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
> that the conspiracy is working.
On 4 Sep 2003 11:36:18 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael Gordge)
wrote:
>Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vj4elv4rjcc5a8kl05n58hcffebco14pae@no-spam>...
>> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:07:51 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >Enkidu says...
>> >
>>
>> However, I did notice. You didn't address the fact that all your
>> "arguments" are mere statements of opinions. However facts, such as
>> are presented in the articles I referenced are foreign to you, and all
>> you can do is bluster, try to change the subject and insult whoever
>> you are in "discussion" with.
>
>Facts (pause) facts (pause) facts Cliff? what are "facts" Cliff, it is
>you who claims "truth is in the eye of the beholder" which makes
>"facts" a worthless word, surely.
>
No, I have not claimed that "truth is in the eye of the beholder",
Michael. That's just the interpretation that you choose to put on what
I say. Facts are not absolute, but that doesn't make facts worthless.
It just makes then relative.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
This may sound callous .. but what would you prefer to have the elderly
die of? It used to be cold that killed them off, so my guess is that the
French have made _some_ progress if they now survive the winter to be
knocked off by the summer.
Then again, maybe it's something to do with global warming ..
Point is, old people tend to die at some point. And there is always gonna
be _something_ that is the trigger.
At least
1) they're making it to old age
2) they aren't dying from some horrible disease
3) they aren't dying from something that can be controlled by man - the
weather is not our responsibility.
Yes, presumably air conditioning would help.
What I DON'T understand is how you and Dennis Prager draw a logical link
from a bunch of natural deaths to declare socialism, not only a failure,
but an active EVIL. Dennis provides no supporting evidence to show that
socialism has failed France.
When I was there a couple of years ago, I was unaware that it was
considered 'socialist', I was more than a little impressed by the train
system and the quality of life.
None of the apparent attempts to draw logical conclusions from facts
given in this piece hold water. If you like I'll critique it sentence by
sentence, but I will assume for now that that is not necessary because
it is so poor.
shevek
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:24:14 +1000, Redbaiter wrote:
> Good article from Dennis Prager which every socialist zealot should
> read, and ponder on how the idea is so often the opposite of the
> reality, and how they won't ever admit such a simple fact.
>
> SOCIALISM KILLS-
>
> In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly French
> men and women died of heat stroke. It is important to note this is not
> nearly the scandal in France that it would be in America. In fact, upon
> hearing the news, French president Jacques Chirac decided to stay on
> vacation in Quebec, Canada.
>
> Why not? Because, in the words of British historian Paul Johnson, the
> French like most Europeans, and like most left- thinking people
> anywhere love ideas more than people. The average educated European
> can intelligently discuss Hegel or Matisse almost as well as the average
> educated American who probably never heard of Hegel or Matisse can
> discuss real estate or sports.
>
> Europe has given the world Marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism, racism
> and socialism, all rotten ideas that have caused immeasurable human
> suffering. But for Europeans and their ideological twins on the American
> left and at universities, ideas are not judged by their ability to
> ameliorate human suffering or reduce evil, but by their complexity and
> apparent profundity. An idea is not good because it produces good
> that's unromantic American pragmatism it is good because it sounds
> good.
>
> Eleven thousand unnecessary deaths occurred in France largely because
> socialism inevitably breeds hedonism, selfishness and callousness.
>
> As ironic as it may seem, but the fact is that socialism i.e.,
> cradle-to-grave state welfare makes people worse.
>
> First, the socialist mind loathes work. In France, the legal length of
> the work week is 35 hours. Working hard to make more money is an
> American value that is held in contempt by the Left. The New York Times
> recently featured an article describing the death of the Protestant work
> ethic in secular, socialist Europe and the thriving of that ethic in
> America and that this explains the far greater productivity and
> affluence of America. The Judeo-Christian tradition values work;
> secularism doesn't. And as we all know from watching our children,
> people with a lot of time on their hands have character problems.
>
> Second, socialism values equality more than liberty. The Norwegian
> government recently passed a law that the boards of its largest
> corporations must be half female. The California left the Democratic
> Party just passed a law that no employer may fire a male employee who
> wears women's clothing at work. Because the Left holds liberty (except
> sexual liberty) in lower esteem, Europe has raised a generation that
> does not value liberty nearly as much Americans do (though we're getting
> there).
>
> Third, socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other people. The
> state will why should you? If people in France and elsewhere in Europe
> take less care of their aging parents, it is because they are taught
> from childhood to allow others i.e., the state to take care of
> everybody. Just as we saw in America when the state stepped in to take
> care of women who had children without a husband, these women
> increasingly refused to marry and felt little compunction about having
> more babies out of wedlock. The bigger the government, the worse the
> people.
>
> Fourth, as a result of this socialist mindset, people in socialist
> countries give little charity, while Americans give vast amounts (just
> as Americans in conservative states give more charity per capita than
> people in liberal ones).
>
> Fifth, the larger the state, the more callous it becomes.
> Twentieth-century evil was made possible in large measure by the
> bureaucratic mentality the type of person who is merely a cog in huge
> governmental machine, collectively all-powerful but individually
> powerless to do anything except take and execute orders. The bigger the
> state, the colder its heart. (It is also true that the bigger the
> corporation, the more callous its heart. But unlike the state,
> corporations have competition and have no police powers.)
>
> As I wrote in a previous column, the future of the world is either
> European secular socialism, Islamic totalitarianism or the unique
> American combination of Judeo-Christian religiosity and political and
> economic liberty.
>
> Few Americans are attracted to the second possibility, but vast numbers
> look to Europe as a model. One hopes that the next time they do, they
> will note the 11,000 elderly dead in France. But don't bet on it.
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 20:34:31 +1000, Redbaiter wrote:
> Joe Citizen says...
>
>> > In fact, upon hearing the news, French president Jacques Chirac
>> > decided to stay on vacation in Quebec, Canada.
>>
>> Duh, its cooler there. He's on vacation, and - so what.
>
> That's the point Bimbo...
>>
>> And the goal of the right is to ameliorate human suffering or reduce
>> evil? Bugger me I thought it was about individual freedom, property
>> rights etc.
>
> The two concerns are complementary.
>
>> > Eleven thousand unnecessary deaths occurred in France largely because
>> > socialism inevitably breeds hedonism, selfishness and callousness.
>>
>> Socialism is no less to blame for this than capitalsim is to blame for
>> the deaths of thousands of poor and homeless around the world in
>> capitalist countries. Or is Reds Utopia so perfect there are no
>> homeless?
>
> Homeless, snort, would there be any meaning to life for you bleeding
> heart modern liberals if there were no homeless to use as an excuse for
> every goddamn transgression of human rights you come up with?
>>
>>
>> > As ironic as it may seem, but the fact is that socialism - i.e.,
>> > cradle-to-grave state welfare - makes people worse.
>>
>> Its deliberately misleading to suggest state welfare is the primary
>> principle of socialism.
>
> Yeah, well good argument you made for that proclamation...
>>
>>
>> Bollocks, the US economy is artificially propped up by the
>> international markets trading commodities in US dollars. The world
>> markets are forced to hold trillions of US dollars in reserves. To do
>> this they buy it from the US, essentially handing the US a long term
>> interest free loan, propping up the economy. This reasoning has carried
>> the push for the Euro, to sway the balance back to Europes favour a
>> little, and on this scale a little is a hell of a lot. A larger more
>> stable Euro is a safer trading currency.
>
> Well, you had to get to it sooner or later, the conspiracy... goddamn
> leftists, so predictable...
>>
>> > Third, socialism teaches you to avoid taking care of other people.
>> > The state will - why should you? If people in France and elsewhere in
>> > Europe take less care of their aging parents, it is because they are
>> > taught from childhood to allow others - i.e., the state - to take
>> > care of everybody.
>>
>> What rubbish, the elderly are neglected and isolated in many societies,
>> not just socialist societies.
>
> Is that right? How many more of your socialists societies besides
> Germany are starting to elect politicians who stand on a platform of
> denying their elderly life prolonging medical care because of the cost?
>>
>> > Just as we saw in America
>> > when the state stepped in to take care of women who had children
>> > without a husband, these women increasingly refused to marry and felt
>> > little compunction about having more babies out of wedlock. The
>> > bigger the government, the worse the people.
>>
>> Give them an inch they'll take a mile. Its not socialism, its human
>> nature.
>
> Its vote buying actually...
>>
>> > Fourth, as a result of this socialist mindset, people in socialist
>> > countries give little charity, while Americans give vast amounts
>> > (just as Americans in conservative states give more charity per
>> > capita than people in liberal ones).
>>
>> That contradicts your own ideas Red i.e. NZ is socialist. Given that
>> NZers contribute more to charity per capita than almost any other
>> nation.
>
> I'll bet. Such statistics are always self serving crap.
>
>> > Fifth, the larger the state, the more callous it becomes.
>
> Oh gawd, how pathetic, just cannot help it with the lies can you???
>>
>> This article is just
>> sour grapes over Frances position on the Iraq war. What a load of
>> delusional tripe.
>>
> Its a good opinion piece, it describes leftism pretty accurately,
> especially the outcomes that are the reverse of the ideal.
No, it is not. No, it does not. And I think following any ideal
inevitably produces outcomes which are the opposite of those intended,
but I don't think this piece portrays such outcomes accurately,
effectively, or sympathetically.
shevek
"tonycook" <tonycook@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bj84tp$vrg$1@no-spam>...
> "Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ef47a19d.0309032317.5c9dbd43@no-spam
> > "tonycook" <tonycook@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:<bj5jre$481$1@no-spam>...
> > > "Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:ef47a19d.0309031047.5b9b6a59@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > Socialism is the beginning of communism and democracy is the road
> > > > taking us there. eg the communist Greens got to the Beehive and now
> > > > influence government policy through democracy, superdemocracy is the
> > > > superhighway to communism.
> > >
> > > Dear dear.
> > > You are so confused.
> >
> > I went fishing, you bit like the shark you are.
>
> By all means fish to your heart's content.
> I prefer a bit of schnapper to shark though.
>
> > > If people are not able to stipulate their own laws -
> >
> > Now you're staring to sound exactly like a libertarian tonycook.
>
> Well I'm glad you agree that people should stipulate their own laws -
> and in order to do that fairly - they settle on the majority view,
ding dong - wrong, when the mob get involved, then individual values
are NOT possible, so bit of a contradiction there my man, not
surprising given you have no concept on the notion of "the truth"
>
> And as long as those rights and values are within the law,
> that's fine with me.
Yeap that was just fine and dandy with 6 million Jews too. The "law"
is supposed to be about justice, not about the "whims" of mobs.
>
> > If ONE man may NOT have power over another,
>
> Provided no law is broken - yes.
> You keep missing out (very conveniently) the most
> important bits.
like?
> >libertarians
> > say, "individuals MUST be left alone to do their own thinking".
>
> Absolutely.
> Think away all you like.
> There's certainly no law that forbids doing your own thinking.
ding dong wrong again, the Hate Crime legislation is all about
threatening people with jail, for their thinking.
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f56e38f$1@no-spam
> H.Dickmann says...
> >
> > "Joe Citizen" <nowhere@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:lM%4b.135161$JA5.3210151@no-spam
> > > > SOCIALISM KILLS-
> > > >
> > > > In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly
> > > > French men and women died of heat stroke.
> > >
> > > Wow, Red has even found a way of blaming the commies for the weather
now.
> > > Amazing.
> > >
> > > Joe.
> > >
> > Actually, Red doesn't like the French Socialist system where old people
live
> > in their own homes which had become to hot in the heatwave. He prefers
the
> > American system wher old people live on the streets of New York and
freeze
> > to dead every winter.
> >
> Barf....
>
> The "homeless"....!!!
>
> The no argument left's favourite issue.
>
> Anybody who is homeless in the US is that way because they
> choose to be.
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
That incredible callous attitude of right wing Americans is the reason the
world hates America. How many more 9 /11 do you need before you adopt the
Christian principle to care for your fellow man?
"Craig D" <craignz*@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3f59051e.1502653@no-spam
>
> Why can't a country where every person deals with every other person
> with voluntary mutual consent work?
Because of the necessity of delegating representation, and the conflicts of
interest that arise when you do so.
Its why tonycookland won't work either.
>
> Are you trying to say that every person is rotten? That mankind are
> unable to deal with each other, without one group using force against
> each other.
>
Conflicts of interest vs mutual goals.
Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam> wrote in message news:<co4glv0662sop43djbk0525ts26githfkk@no-spam>...
> On 4 Sep 2003 11:36:18 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael Gordge)
> wrote:
>
> >Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam> wrote in message news:<vj4elv4rjcc5a8kl05n58hcffebco14pae@no-spam>...
> >> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:07:51 +1200, Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Enkidu says...
> >> >
> >>
> >> However, I did notice. You didn't address the fact that all your
> >> "arguments" are mere statements of opinions. However facts, such as
> >> are presented in the articles I referenced are foreign to you, and all
> >> you can do is bluster, try to change the subject and insult whoever
> >> you are in "discussion" with.
> >
> >Facts (pause) facts (pause) facts Cliff? what are "facts" Cliff, it is
> >you who claims "truth is in the eye of the beholder" which makes
> >"facts" a worthless word, surely.
> >
Cliff claims ;
"Facts are not absolute,"
Is that an "absolutely factual" statement Cliff?
How do you know Cliff, that it is an absolute fact, that facts are not
absolute, if, facts are not absolute Cliff?
Don't you see YOUR problem Cliff, your statement is impossible to
verify as being a fact, logically, because YOU claim facts are not
absolute.
mmmmm and to think Mike Parsons thinks you are an intellectual guru,
gosh what does that make Mike Parsons I wonder.
Cliff, a fact is, a piece of knowledge or information for which there
is no known evidence or matter of existence that contradicts that
piece of knowledge.
By definition therefore, it is NOT a fact to claim facts are not
absolute.
Information gathered in the future does NOT render "facts" today as
being non- factual, but rather they are simply NEW facts or new
information.
Contrary to your silly and illogical thinking Cliff, we do not live in
the future, therefore facts can ONLY ever be "of" this present moment,
however, possibly based upon information, but not necessarily so, of
the past.
EG when blood transfusions started, it was a "fact" to claim that
blood could be transfused; the "new" information was, only between
certain blood types, that "new" information did NOT make it
non-factual that blood could not be transfused, did it?
We can ONLY "add" to facts, we can NEVER change them because "facts
are facts".
On 5 Sep 2003 16:51:21 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael Gordge)
wrote:
>
>Cliff claims ;
>
> "Facts are not absolute,"
>
>Is that an "absolutely factual" statement Cliff?
>
No, it is only relative.
>
>How do you know Cliff, that it is an absolute fact, that facts are not
>absolute, if, facts are not absolute Cliff?
>
See above.
>
>Don't you see YOUR problem Cliff, your statement is impossible to
>verify as being a fact, logically, because YOU claim facts are not
>absolute.
>
No, it is possible to verify facts. In fact (heh!) a fact that is not
verified is NOT a fact, as scientists know well. If a fact is verified
it is still not absolute, because another fact may come along which
contradicts it. Simple!
>mmmmm and to think Mike Parsons thinks you are an intellectual guru,
>gosh what does that make Mike Parsons I wonder.
>
>Cliff, a fact is, a piece of knowledge or information for which there
>is no known evidence or matter of existence that contradicts that
>piece of knowledge.
>
Yes, I totally agree. With emphasis on the "no known evidence or
matter of existence that contradicts (it)"
>
>By definition therefore, it is NOT a fact to claim facts are not
>absolute.
>
Rubbish! By YOUR OWN DEFINITION, there may be facts as yet unknown
that contradict the fact, so it is only ever relatively true.
>
>Information gathered in the future does NOT render "facts" today as
>being non- factual, but rather they are simply NEW facts or new
>information.
>
It was accepted as a fact that men could never fly. Now men can fly
that invalidates that fact. A scientist proved that Bumblebees could
not fly. This fact is invalidated everytime a Bumblebee flies.
You have a real problem understanding past, present and future, don't
you? Think deeply on this saying: "Today is the tomorrow you worried
about yesterday".
>
>Contrary to your silly and illogical thinking Cliff, we do not live in
>the future, therefore facts can ONLY ever be "of" this present moment,
>however, possibly based upon information, but not necessarily so, of
>the past.
>
See above
>
>EG when blood transfusions started, it was a "fact" to claim that
>blood could be transfused; the "new" information was, only between
>certain blood types, that "new" information did NOT make it
>non-factual that blood could not be transfused, did it?
>
It did make it non-factual (!) to say that blood could be tranfused
between any two people.
(By the way blood CAN be transfused between any two people. However if
the blood types are wrong, this could kill. So, as stated, your
original "fact" is still true).
>
>We can ONLY "add" to facts, we can NEVER change them because "facts
>are facts".
>
That's the core of your argument isn't it? "facts are facts". That's
either tautological or authoritarian ("take my word for it") or both.
Take your pick.
Cheers,
Cliff
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
craignz*@no-spam (Craig D) wrote in message news:<3f59051e.1502653@no-spam>...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 09:32:18 +1200, "tonycook" <tonycook@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >> ding dong - wrong, when the mob get involved, then individual values
> >> are NOT possible,
> >
> >Individual values have never - nor will ever be possible within any
> >society on their own - only collective values.
>
> Why the hell not?
>
> >You have never been able to show or explain how it would be
> >possible - because you can't - and because it's not possible.
> >eg. If your views and my views are diametrically opposed -
> >and have to be actioned - one of us has to give way to the other.
> >There is clearly no other option.
>
> You ignore who actually owns the right to control the matter
> concerned.
>
> If I think I should live, and you think I should die, one DOES have to
> give way to the other, but that doesn't mean it is something that
> should be voted on.
>
> >Democracy/Superdemocracy recognises this and allows for the best
> >and fairest *compromise* that satisfies most people most of the time.
>
> Completely ignoring all individual rights.
>
> Regardless of whose blood, sweat and tears have gone into any private
> property, you think it's FAIR to redistribute it because it satisfies
> most people?
>
> If i've put hours of work into buying some property, I don't give a
> fuck how many people it would satisfy if you took it away.
>
> Society does not own me. To claim a right to my property is to claim a
> right to my past, and all the hours that were required to produce it.
>
> Deciding things about property regardless of who owns it is not fair.
> It is disgusting! It is claiming that "society" has a right to your
> life, and the most precious thing anyone can have, their time.
>
> >One cannot - I repeat - cannot - satisfy everyone at all times.
> >Why can't you understand this very simple fact of life?
>
> I DO UNDERSTAND IT.
>
> I simply think that satisfying everyone should not be your end, when
> your means are taking control of something that you didn't put the
> sweat into creating.
>
> >What you are expecting is simply *not possible* !!!!!!
> >What is it about "not possible" that you don't understand?
>
> Why the hell not?
>
> Why can't a country where every person deals with every other person
> with voluntary mutual consent work?
>
> Are you trying to say that every person is rotten? That mankind are
> unable to deal with each other, without one group using force against
> each other.
>
> It's either voluntary, or someone uses force.
>
> What makes you think that voluntary action isn't possible?
>
> >(snipped)
> >> > And as long as those rights and values are within the law,
> >> > that's fine with me.
> >>
> >> Yeap that was just fine and dandy with 6 million Jews too.
> >
> >Irrelevant.
> >The jews were murdered by a military dictator
> >and not by any democratic means.
>
> Hmm, that's funny.
>
> While the SA were running around terrorising jews, and while the Nazi
> party OPENLY stated their anti-semetic views, the Nazi party kept
> getting more seats.
>
> But that's ok, because it's what society wants, isn't it?
>
> It doesn't matter that while Hitler was telling people that jews were
> a disease that needed to be wiped out, they still voted for him.
>
> >> The "law"
> >> is supposed to be about justice, not about the "whims" of mobs.
> >
> >Well - if the whims of the mob are of no account to you -
> >what makes your whims and/or the whims of Loony Libz
> >any better or fairer?
>
> The libz would not decide anything about other's property.
>
> The whims of the OWNER or the land, or the rights to control, would be
> what mattered.
>
> >Why and on what basis are the whims of a minority/individual
> >more important than the majority's?
>
> Oh my god. What a statement of inconcievable evil.
>
> Ayn Rand said it best in Atlas Shrugged:
>
> "We're all one big family, they told us, we're all in this together.
> But you don't stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day -
> together, and you don't all get a bellyache - together... There wasn't
> a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind
> he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself..."
>
> What right does a majority have to claim control over a man's life?
> His property? His time?
>
> The right or being the biggest? Is it because there are more of them?
>
> >Why should the majority bow to minorities/individuals -
> >thus making it a dictatorship?
>
> Indeed, my house is, and should be a dictatorship.
>
> My neighbors house should be his dictatorship.
>
> I should CERTAINLY be my own dictatorship.
>
> The alternative is that everything you own, is no longer yours. The
> effort that you have put into your life means nothing, because you
> have no right to control it.
>
> >> > > If ONE man may NOT have power over another,
> >> >
> >> > Provided no law is broken - yes.
> >> > You keep missing out (very conveniently) the most
> >> > important bits.
> >>
> >> like?
> >
> >"Provided no law is broken".
> >Otherwise your above statement is incorrect -
> >because it assumes all men never do anything wrong -
> >and they do.
>
> But law is not an objective fact of right. It should be, but your law
> does not rest on objective individual rights, does it?
>
> Your law is whatever a majority wants, so your defence that men may
> not have power over one another, provided that they follow your legal
> system, is of absolutely no assurance whatsoever.
>
> >> > >libertarians
> >> > > say, "individuals MUST be left alone to do their own thinking".
> >> >
> >> > Absolutely.
> >> > Think away all you like.
> >> > There's certainly no law that forbids doing your own thinking.
> >>
> >> ding dong wrong again,
> >
> >Well Mr ding dong - I think not.
> >
> >> the Hate Crime legislation is all about
> >> threatening people with jail, for their thinking.
> >
> >Incorrect.
> >People are threatened with arrest and penalties for breaking the law -
> >not for their thinking.
>
> Can't you see?
> The law can extend to include the way you think.
>
> >But as long as you persist in ignoring realities - of course
> >even the most simple events will always remain very complicated
> >for you.
>
> I can't decide whether you are innocently ignorant of the kinds of
> people your system would destroy, or if you still fight for it, in
> full knowledge that it will render meaningless hundreds of thousands
> of hours of peoples lives, making them and their property slaves to
> the "society"
>
> Craig
> Remove * to email.
>
> On usenet I speak only for myself.
So you see tonycook, it must be just so infuriating to you, that a
chap (Craig) who I have never met in my life, is able to carry the
identical message as me, without one single contradiction between what
he says and what I say.
That's the best party of libertarian philosophy, it is ONE very simple
to understand concept that we ALL speak the same language about,
individual FREEDOM from "force".
Unlike your fucking useless lot, tonycook, simple Simon Pleasant, Mike
the rude Parsons, silly Tilly, Sue, Cliff the dick, and all those
other socialist parasite whukwits, you all contradict each other ALL
the time, you cant agree on anything other than the use of force (the
vote of the mob) to get your way, and yet you are all scum bag
parasitical socialists, the lot of you, who all think the world owes
you a living, well fuck you, you THINK, tonycook, that you and
supermobocracy is different to what we have now, well you and it aint
sunshine, you are NO different to the rest of them, you are a
parasite,
The ONLY fifference between the lot of you and I include those freedom
fraudsters the Act party, the ONLY difference between the lot of ya,
is the degree of control you want over peaceful citizens, well fuck
you.
Cheers
Mike Gordge
Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam> wrote in message news:<v6ailvk0kslomfsnhohn2jll75khrko61p@no-spam>...
> On 5 Sep 2003 16:51:21 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael Gordge)
> wrote:
> >
> No, it is possible to verify facts. In fact (heh!) a fact that is not
> verified is NOT a fact, as scientists know well. If a fact is verified
> it is still not absolute, because another fact may come along which
> contradicts it. Simple!
What about that statement Cliff, can it be an absolute factual fact
Cliff, given that no facts are absolute? No, really? then why should
we take the slightest bit of notice of you?
Oh it can be, Hah? how can that be given that, according to YOU, there
is no such thing?
>
> You have a real problem understanding past, present and future, don't
> you? Think deeply on this saying: "Today is the tomorrow you worried
> about yesterday".
Ohh you Dingbat, think deeply on these question: "If the future is
here, then why does Lotto Jackpot"?
> It did make it non-factual (!) to say that blood could be tranfused
> between any two people.
Oh dear Cliff you really can be thick, knowledge is and always has
been contextual.
EG. A+C WILL mean B - given a certain sets of circumstances OR given
the right context.
EG
The *Fact* (knowledge) is, "blood can be tansfused" the context (new
knowledge) being "between certain blood groups"
The FACT did NOT change, that blood could be transfused, it was just
given conditions or a context.
Fact "some blood transfusions can kill people" the context being "if
their blood types are not compatible"
> >
> That's the core of your argument isn't it? "facts are facts". That's
> either tautological or authoritarian ("take my word for it") or both.
> Take your pick.
h you ding bat, its not a case of being "authoritarian". Whether you
like it or not Cliff, agree with it or not Cliff, does NOT change the
fact, that by definition and by logic, "facts" ARE absolute and they
can NOT be changed, or else they are NOT facts.
Facts ARE and can ONLY ever be present time or of the past, Cliff,
because we DO NOT and CAN NOT live in the future, if we could, Lotto
would not jackpot, in fact there would be no such game.
*Facts* ARE absolute Cliff, make NO mistake about it.
Mike Gordge
"Olson Johnson" <oj@no-spam> wrote in message news:<eG86b.3914$cg.201163@no-spam>...
> "Craig D" <craignz*@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3f59051e.1502653@no-spam
> >
> > Why can't a country where every person deals with every other person
> > with voluntary mutual consent work?
>
> Because of the necessity of delegating representation, and the conflicts of
> interest that arise when you do so.
Where does this "necessity of delegating representation," that you
talk about, come from?
> >
>
> Conflicts of interest vs mutual goals.
Give an example of what you mean because I have no idea.
On 6 Sep 2003 14:55:29 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael Gordge)
wrote:
>
>> No, it is possible to verify facts. In fact (heh!) a fact that is not
>> verified is NOT a fact, as scientists know well. If a fact is verified
>> it is still not absolute, because another fact may come along which
>> contradicts it. Simple!
>
>What about that statement Cliff, can it be an absolute factual fact
>Cliff, given that no facts are absolute? No, really? then why should
>we take the slightest bit of notice of you?
>
>Oh it can be, Hah? how can that be given that, according to YOU, there
>is no such thing?
>
It is not an absolute fact. Just because something is only relatively
true, doesn't mean that it is worthless. There is a relationship
between US dollars and NZ dollars, but that doesn't mean that US or NZ
dollars are worthless.
>>
>> You have a real problem understanding past, present and future, don't
>> you? Think deeply on this saying: "Today is the tomorrow you worried
>> about yesterday".
>
>Ohh you Dingbat, think deeply on these question: "If the future is
>here, then why does Lotto Jackpot"?
>
Well, that just points up the difference between the future and the
present and the past. If you actually *THINK* about it - and I despair
of you managing to actually think about something in any depth - if
you actually think about it it says something interesting. To take a
simple case, you talk about Lotto jackpotting, so you somewhere deep
inside you believe that the future exists in some sense because it
would nor make any sense to make predictions about it if it didn't.
>
>> It did make it non-factual (!) to say that blood could be tranfused
>> between any two people.
>
>Oh dear Cliff you really can be thick, knowledge is and always has
>been contextual.
>
>EG. A+C WILL mean B - given a certain sets of circumstances OR given
>the right context.
>
>EG
>The *Fact* (knowledge) is, "blood can be tansfused" the context (new
>knowledge) being "between certain blood groups"
>
You are mixing up "facts" and "observations".
>
>The FACT did NOT change, that blood could be transfused, it was just
>given conditions or a context.
>
>Fact "some blood transfusions can kill people" the context being "if
>their blood types are not compatible"
>
Again, you mix up facts with observations. The realm of facts is the
future. We use them to predict things, like the sun rising in the
morning. Facts do not belong to the past or present. We observe that
transfusions work for compatible people. We deduce the fact that
transfusions will work for all compatible people. Or that the sun will
rise tomorrow. It's all tied up with your inability to understand how
past, present and future are related.
>> >
>> That's the core of your argument isn't it? "facts are facts". That's
>> either tautological or authoritarian ("take my word for it") or both.
>> Take your pick.
>
>h you ding bat, its not a case of being "authoritarian". Whether you
>like it or not Cliff, agree with it or not Cliff, does NOT change the
>fact, that by definition and by logic, "facts" ARE absolute and they
>can NOT be changed, or else they are NOT facts.
>
>Facts ARE and can ONLY ever be present time or of the past, Cliff,
>because we DO NOT and CAN NOT live in the future, if we could, Lotto
>would not jackpot, in fact there would be no such game.
>
Wrong. we live in past present and future. On Friday we knew that
Lotto had jackpotted because no one had picked up the prize in the
past. In the present of Friday, we knew that another draw would happen
on Saturday. Fact. That was for Friday in the future. On Saturday we
were living the Saturday present. We'd bought a ticket in the past on
Friday. The draw was happening right now, in the present and it was a
fact that the result would be available right now in the present AND
in the future. On Sunday's present we knew the result and we
remembered buying the ticket. In the past.
Have you ever looked out of the back window of a car? The view is like
the past. Looking out the window you can see the past. You can see
things appearing in the back window all the time. They are things
which are moving from the future to the past (part the present, which
is the car). You surely would not claim the the road ahead does not
exist because it doesn't yet appear in the rear window? But that is
exactly what you claim about the future.
>*Facts* ARE absolute Cliff, make NO mistake about it.
>
Sez you.
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working.
Enkidu <enkidu@no-spam> wrote in message news:<58rklv0d04lgh8mjk7f6451639etj05mqg@no-spam>...
> On 6 Sep 2003 14:55:29 -0700, mikegordge@no-spam (Michael Gordge)
> wrote:
> >
> >*Facts* ARE absolute Cliff, make NO mistake about it.
> >
> So *YOU* say. Why should I believe you?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff
Phewwww at long last we are getting somewhere, the answer is, Cliff
(is that your factual name?) its not just ME who says "facts" are
absolute, even the dictionary says;
fact; n an actual event or occurance
Soooooooo that means Cliff, if it aint here, then it aint a fact, and
when or if it does get here, then and only then, it becomes a fact.
Sooooooooo Cliff, if we use YOUR definition, which in essense says,
there is no such thing as a fact, because at some stage the fact could
be proven wrong, which in essense says, that even YOU could be wrong
saying facts are not facts, because that could be proven wrong, which
to me is a very silly way to live your life.
The reality is, not even YOU really live by that stupid nonsense
Cliff, because if you did, then your life would have ended years ago.
eg you know Cliff, that it is a "fact" of the most absolute certainty,
that even you could not breath under-in water, unaided. It is a "fact"
of absolute certainty Cliff, that if you were to be standing directly
under a tonne of concrete when it fell directly on your head, from a
height of 20 meters, you would die. You know it is a "fact" of
absolute certainty Cliff, that if someone cut your fucking head off,
you would die.
JEEEEEEZ and to think Mike Parsons see sun shinning from your bum and
to think you are able to vote, no fucking wonder I have no trust in
democracy, with dingbats like you two voting, what should or should
not happen to MY life, thank fuck for libertarians.
"tonycook" <tonycook@no-spam> wrote in message news:<bjilkt$1dr$1@no-spam>...
> "Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:ef47a19d.0309081108.23f346d2@no-spam
>
> (snipped)
> > and to think you are able to vote, no fucking wonder I have no trust in
> > democracy, with dingbats like you two voting, what should or should
> > not happen to MY life, thank fuck for libertarians.
>
>
> Why would the Lords of Libz do any better than the electorate?
...do any better, what tonycook?
> If the electorate is not asked - then they won't be represented -
> and neither will you.
Oh tonycook, if only that day would come. I dont want to represent any
person other than myself tonycook. I want people to "respesent
themselves" tonycook and I sure as hell dont want any person to
represent me.
> What's the big advantage of that?
What? you cant take care of or represent yourself tonycook, why ever
not you poor wee sod, what is YOUR problem tonycook, is it physical or
mental?
Look, tonycook, New Zealanders generally in fact by far and large are
wonderful, generous and very compassionate people, so I am very
confident, that in a libertarian society, for people like YOU who
clearly do have severe disabilities, then those who could help you
tonycook, would rally around and send a hat around for collections
gosh who knows even I may put my hand in my pocket for you and help
you and help Mike Parson and help Simon Pleasants and help Tilly and
help Brian Dooley and help Cliff and all your other silly, uncertain,
unconfident, scared, parasitical, socialist mates.
Mike Gordge
>
> TC
