Pandemoniak to Bloody Baro Continued

[FlameFlash]

Archaic... and this is yet another reason this thread should have stayed where it was... since you were last at it, it's been hijacked.

And please note that I am nobody's cheerleader.

Perhaps Lucky was attacking the URL and therefore stating that this "godly" essay you're throwing all of your hopes, dreams, and arguments into is nothing more than some layman making a post that anybody anywhere could do and still gain a following.

Credentials man, credentials... I don't really care about having things quoted unless they're either experts, or unbiased statistics. (Even though experts can basically be said to be biased statistics sometimes.)

[FlameFlash]

che enlightened me here...
Nope, wrong. We've always been free thinkers, Bohemians, etc. It was the Maoists who changed that.

Ah... again not in its pure form then, I see.

How does it not manage to turn into anarchy then?

[KrazyHorse]

After a sufficient period in which society transforms itself, it hopefully does...

[KrazyHorse]

At least according to the theory.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
How does it not manage to turn into anarchy then?

Just because there is no state doesn't mean there's no government. People are perfectly capable of orgainzing themselves to deal with trouble should the need arise.

[Pandemoniak]

This PM has been sent to Archaic
Archaic, I definetly want this argument to stay clean. If you make one more personnal attack, I will have no other solutions than report it.
This PM will be posted in OT.

[FlameFlash]

*sighs*

I hate when this happens when opinions are so different.

Though either warning him publicly or warning him PM would have been the wisest thing... almost too dramatic when you do both and say you've done both...

Just too bad it came to that.

[Pandemoniak]

I agree with you FlmaeFlash, but I m fed up to be called "stupid" etc... I told several times to Archaic that I was ready to debate it quietly, but he repeated his personnal attacks, so I thought I gotta do something. Do you suggest something else ?

[FlameFlash]

Oh, I understand, Pandemoniak, I was basically just stating my disappointment that it had come to this... (I don't like being called anybody's yes-man, cheerleader, whatever).

Unfortunately that was about all you could do... I just hate seeing more conflict than debate, always have and always will probably. Once something falls into name-calling it's not a debate any more though... it's just I wish there was some way we could just bring those who do refuse to just debate and instead make it personal into the light of debating.

I'm not a master debater by a long shot, but I did it enough in HS to know when somebody wasn't having fun and trying to learn anymore but just wanted to be right at all costs.

I wish there was more I could say... *sighs*

(Goes off to find his old avatar back in his wbs.net days on his HD backups that perfectly fit his handle even back then...)

[chequita guevara]

Man, Archiac's rudeness is making me have to go back and read that turgid, steaming pile again. Just so I can tear it to shreads.

[FlameFlash]

But just remember to have fun

[lucky22]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Archaic

As for the "Stardestroyer.net" lucky22, so what? ...Attacking the name of the domain is a pitiful red herring.

FlameFlash is right about my motivations for that parting shot. However, part of my motivation was to be aggravating and for that I apologize.



Archaic goes on: " Regardless of if it's a scholarly essay or not, it still more than adequatly rebuts the Communit Manifesto's main points. Perhaps you should be asking yourself why Marxism can be rebutted by simple common sense."

Unfortunately my point is that Wong is on the pulpit but is demonstrating no true authority over his topic. I use "common sense" as a synonym for naivete because our knowledge is not a divine product of pure observation. What is obvious to you and what is obvious to an indigenous inhabitant of the Niger Delta is not going to be the same. Nor will your respective relationships to capitalism be the same. In his Second Treatise on Government, John Locke theorized enclosure as the basis of economy and declared it a gift from God, as per the book of Genesis. He did not commit that act of "common sense" so often as Hobbes, but he had to do so to legitimate capitalism. Mill, Bacon, Locke, Hobbes, Smith all shill for empire by dint of divine authority. These minds are part of the foundations of our post-imperial education, which in truth has more to do with our knowlege than any pretense of "just knowing what is obvious".
For me it is obvious that no one should grow up a peasant, even if one grows up laboring in agriculture or the service sector. It is also obvious that to frame a rebuttal to that thought in terms of "competition" is a joke. A sadistic joke, at that.

[Archaic]

*Yawns* How rude I might be doesn't make my points any less valid. Attack the theory, not the person Pandemoniak. While the gullable are easily swayed to a person who makes their opponent look like the "bad guy", I would hope the intellectual level of people here is far above that. If I'm a "bad guy" for raising legitimate concerns about your ability to understand both politics and economics, concerns you have yet to prove are unfounded, then I guess I'm a "bad guy". Quite frankly, I don't care if someone wants to see me as that or not. Facts are facts, and however much you want to dispute them, you can't change them. Try if you must, but you're only going to get your arguements thrown back in your face. I can talk the talk and walk the walk. So far, you've thrown a lot of hot air and debating fallacies at me (You didn't read that link, did you?). Once you start walking the walk, maybe then I might be persuaded to have some respect for you. Until then, so long as you keep attacking my integrity

I make no secret of the fact that I consider those clinging to Marx's outdated (And wrong even in his time!) political and economic beliefs (I'm sure you know by now that Marx had no knowledge or grounding in either disipline. He was a philosopher, and not an especially good one at that.) to be on the same intellectual level as young earth creationists. It's up to you to sway me from that, if you can. So stop stalling and crying "foul!" and post something for yourself instead of having others post things for you. I refuse to make further replies to the others here until

1) You post your own reply
2) You get everyone else making these cheerleader posts for you out of this thread (Flameflash, I know you're not a cheerleader for him, but in fairness to him, you should probably stop posting too. If this is just going to be me and him, it should be *just* me and him.)


Oh, and for the record, I've never directly called you stupid. You inferred that on your own, as any impartial observer could see.

[Az]

caaaaa.....*Bump*

[lucky22]

Archaic- I am no cheerleader. My points are cogent, but unaddressed. You have demonstrated no personal authority over this topic. Rather, you present the undigested work of othrs and a shrill, reactionary tone. You don't appear able to articulate yourself. "Red herring" indeed.