stubroness

is it a good thing?

while you may tell a nazi his views are wrong, he ownt stop, even when presented with impulsing evidence his actions are wrong.

but what about telling people that a system they belive in (communism,anarchism,green,ETC) is flaweed, is that a good type of stuborness

What is a stubroness actually if I may ask..?

^^ Stubbornness*.

And to the OP, why would you accept an ideology and fiercly resist it at the same time?... No, stubbornness is not good.

not even when defedning your country
you dont want to be stuborn and not give up+

I thought you meant as a personality trait, cos otherwise the answer is quite obvious; yes. Certainly there are things which need to be fiercly resisted, with force if necessary. I really don't think there's any disagreement on this.

Black_Cross wrote:

I thought you meant as a personality trait, cos otherwise the answer is quite obvious; yes. Certainly there are things which need to be fiercly resisted, with force if necessary. I really don't think there's any disagreement on this.

However, I don't think "stuborness" would apply in that scenario. As fasr as I know stubbornness refers to "senseless resistance" while it would be more proper to refer to the second case, perhaps, as perseverance.

enviro wrote:

is it a good thing?

while you may tell a nazi his views are wrong, he ownt stop, even when presented with impulsing evidence his actions are wrong.

but what about telling people that a system they belive in (communism,anarchism,green,ETC) is flaweed, is that a good type of stuborness

i dont know enviro, IS stubroness a bad thing? i'm not quite sure what stubroness is... i am however positive that being litterate is a good thing.

alek4
why you gotta hate
and i bet im more litterate than you, i just type really fast and dont check if i spelled right, i really dont care

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

I thought you meant as a personality trait, cos otherwise the answer is quite obvious; yes. Certainly there are things which need to be fiercly resisted, with force if necessary. I really don't think there's any disagreement on this.

However, I don't think "stuborness" would apply in that scenario. As fasr as I know stubbornness refers to "senseless resistance" while it would be more proper to refer to the second case, perhaps, as perseverance.

Even if this is the case (i don't think it is, but i could well be wrong), enviro's word choice woulda just been poor, but my point remains; there's no discussion that being rigid (which is what enviro meant) at times is a good thing.

PS - Alek, Enviro, you both spelled literate wrong... heh

did we really?
and yes, but what i ment is i have met alot of people who DEFENED not stop policies that are wrong and stupid(proven) like I.D but what my question really is why do they do that
its like philosophy

saying something is flawed is useless. You should put real arguments WHY it is flawed.

Fascism for example is flawed, because the idea of extreme nationalism can only lead to hatred and wars and that's not what most people want.

Fascism won't rise as long as people remember what it has brought to us.

but what about communism
i may not be a flawed system, but counties calling themselves communist have ruined the image

enviro wrote:

but what about communism
i may not be a flawed system, but counties calling themselves communist have ruined the image

Indeed, maybe we have two sort of communism, Communsim und communism, note the capital C.

Communism does indeed have flaws. One I can think of right now, which capitalism is also suceptible to, is corruption. A look at the vast majority of societies in the last century that have been comunist is a good example, and obious one, too. Capitalism's corruption is rarely as blatant.

CoolKidX wrote:

Indeed, maybe we have two sort of communism, Communsim und communism, note the capital C.

That differentiaton with capital C is absolutely pointless. It's teh same word to refer to the same system.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Communism does indeed have flaws. One I can think of right now, which capitalism is also suceptible to, is corruption. A look at the vast majority of societies in the last century that have been comunist is a good example, and obious one, too. Capitalism's corruption is rarely as blatant.

Which societies? And how can there be corruption without government?

Please tell me, Zeal, that you're not going to stand there and say that Stalinist Russia wasn't corrupt, or Castro's Cuba?

Now, I know those aren't communist in the truest sence, and are called communist only by the ignorant, but another good example would be a union. They are, in essence, a communist ideal. And I already discussed that.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Please tell me, Zeal, that you're not going to stand there and say that Stalinist Russia wasn't corrupt, or Castro's Cuba?

I'll just say they're not communist and limit to say communism is impossible to corrupt for there's no parameter of corruption for society (at least not in the sense employed in this context).

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Now, I know those aren't communist in the truest sence, and are called communist only by the ignorant, but another good example would be a union. They are, in essence, a communist ideal. And I already discussed that.

A union of what kind?

As I undertand commuism, the workers who amde a product give it out to those who need it. If they don't like a specific grioup and deny them the use of that product, corruption.

As for unions, I mentioned it before, how auto unions have become corrupt, giving away rights.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

As I undertand commuism, the workers who amde a product give it out to those who need it. If they don't like a specific grioup and deny them the use of that product, corruption.

Nope. Communism is where workers own means of production and coordinate them, their production and its distribution democratically to suffice their needs. If a group of workers denies a product to another group of workers, the most possible outcome is meerely mutual denial, thus lack of organization, but not corruption.

However such a scenario would require too irrational individuals, irrational as to deprive themselves of their needs.

TK wrote:

As for unions, I mentioned it before, how auto unions have become corrupt, giving away rights.

Auto unions?

Quote :

Auto unions?

Yes?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Auto unions?

Yes?

What do you mean with "auto unions"? I don't quite follow you.

Um, the unions int he auto industry. Worker's unoins. Do you not have those?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Um, the unions int he auto industry. Worker's unoins. Do you not have those?

We have unions in any single branch of industry, even waitresses. But I don't quite see the relevance. Of course they're corrupt, they're hierarchic institutions within an exploitative economic framework.

Run by the mafia.