poll

Hmm, garbage ?

so nurses are going to take the garbage to the dump and make sure its taken care of correctly?

Na..That's the job of janidoctors !

fair enough

janidoctors: that's nurses' job!

Question: why is this poll any more valid than my poll of the same question....? o.O

EDIT: he sais he is a national socialist. You cant be a national socialist without being violent. He says he doesnt want anything to happen to the Jews, but obviously no national socialist would think this. Thus, I cant tolerate him being here, especially when I'm restrcited and I haven't done anything wrong.

Individuality wasn't tolerated in the Soviet Union.

If individuality is tolerated, why do you hate capitalism...? Capitalism is all about the strength of the individual. All people are equal under capitalism; it is your responsibility to get the maximum potential out of your life by doing whatever makes you successful.

Under communism, everyone obeys one leader, and the leader tells everyone what to do. Everyone has rations, they cant have any more than what the government tells them to have.

Under capitalism people can have as much as they want.


What's the better system now...?

calinis wrote:

Question: why is this poll any more valid than my poll of the same question....? o.O

EDIT: he sais he is a national socialist. You cant be a national socialist without being violent. He says he doesnt want anything to happen to the Jews, but obviously no national socialist would think this. Thus, I cant tolerate him being here, especially when I'm restrcited and I haven't done anything wrong.

apparentely, as i just stated, im not a national socialist as others have called me.
im either a german segregationist or bonapartist (which im currentely looking into)

calinis wrote:

Individuality wasn't tolerated in the Soviet Union.

This is an utmost stupid statement.

calinis wrote:

If individuality is tolerated, why do you hate capitalism...? Capitalism is all about the strength of the individual. All people are equal under capitalism; it is your responsibility to get the maximum potential out of your life by doing whatever makes you successful.

Nor individuality, nor success nor identity are defined by what and how much you can sell and buy. If your individuality, succes and identity depends to any extent in that, you're an empty and pathetic human being.

calinis wrote:

Under communism, everyone obeys one leader, and the leader tells everyone what to do. Everyone has rations, they cant have any more than what the government tells them to have.

Another phallacy. In communism people democratically decide to make distribution equitative.

calinis wrote:

Under capitalism people can have as much as they want.

A prime example of truth denial.

calinis wrote:

What's the better system now...?

Communism of course.

Mononoki, as far as I know Lillith has read Marx and throughoutly analyzed his works with her logic, and thus views socialism as being what happened in the Soviet Union. It's all perfectly illogical.

HOLD IT!!! If cappies CLAIM to be free and "invidualitistic", then why do I only see "money is great" and "our govenment is benevolent" shit from US, EU, Asia, etc. I've asked many people from those countries and they TRUELY believe that shit. That "whatever u wanna buy = freedom" bullshit. It's PURE thought control in many of those societies and they freaking believe it that at expense of themselves and society in general?!

No way, just NO WAI. That's freaking oppression in my view and can only lead to a failed society in general.

Or they can be a dissenter and question, "What happened to the family values of long ago?"

Lilith wrote:

hahahaha. My logic dear.

Based on which knowledges dear?

Lilith wrote:

Oo, sorry, individualism is promoted? So every individual persons are all supposed to think the same!

Individuality is promoted.

There is one great difference between "thinking all the same" and "agreeing and/or having consensus over a certain thing".

In communism everyone is to agree and cooperate with each other for all the community's wellbeing. Just like murder is universally rejected within society, cooperativism would be universally accepted. This kind of system of course threattens the "individuality" of greedy individuals, but after all in any system respecting or even worse, protecting those individuals' individuality is to respect a threat towards others' individuality.

Individuality is not proportional to how much you can sell and buy, identity is not determined by that. If so, how can individuality and identity be threattened in a system that targets economic matters?

Communism makes production suffice societal needs in an equitative way, how can that threatten individuality?

Quote :

Nor individuality, nor success nor identity are defined by what and how much you can sell and buy. If your individuality, succes and identity depends to any extent in that, you're an empty and pathetic human being.

Wow you're wrong....
Individuality is defined as me having the power to buy whatever I want, not what the government says I can have.

Quote :

Another phallacy. In communism people democratically decide to make distribution equitative.

And then one day those in charge fail to provide everyone with what they need by those in charge taking more than their fair share and then everyone else has to work really hard to provide them with MORE stuff while the workers get none and then it's way worse than capitalism because those get excessive. I can see why you like communism now because you might get to be in charge. If I am able to be in charge, I like it too.

Quote :

A prime example of truth denial.

That's weird. Under capitalism, there's no limit of what I can have so long as I have the means.

Quote :

Communism of course.

For those at the top.

calinis wrote:

Wow you're wrong....
Individuality is defined as me having the power to buy whatever I want, not what the government says I can have.

Wow, that's what I call an empty and mediocre individuality.

Just to adress the government issue: When the people is the government they determine themselves what they can have.

calinis wrote:

And then one day those in charge fail to provide everyone with what they need by those in charge taking more than their fair share and then everyone else has to work really hard to provide them with MORE stuff while the workers get none and then it's way worse than capitalism because those get excessive. I can see why you like communism now because you might get to be in charge. If I am able to be in charge, I like it too.

How can those in charge take for for themselves from themselves? In Communism it is people that is in charge.

calinis wrote:

That's weird. Under capitalism, there's no limit of what I can have so long as I have the means.

So long as you have the means. Which means there is a limit which is proportional to the acquisitive power. And there will always be those whose great acquisitive power depends on others having a lesser acquisitive power.

calinis wrote:

For those at the top.

Yet there's no top, so that would be "everyone".

Quote :

Wow, that's what I call an empty and mediocre individuality.

Just to adress the government issue: When the people is the government they determine themselves what they can have.

Yeah but they have to limit themselves. You've already said that I cant have 50000000 TVS and computers.

Quote :

How can those in charge take for for themselves from themselves? In Communism it is people that is in charge.

No there has to be a central planning commitee to say how much people have to produce. These people can manipulate it.

Quote :

So long as you have the means. Which means there is a limit which is proportional to the acquisitive power. And there will always be those whose great acquisitive power depends on others having a lesser acquisitive power.

Obviously because scarity exists. It doesn't matter. I like having lots of stuff and I would fight anyone who wants to limit my freedom.

calinis wrote:

Yeah but they have to limit themselves. You've already said that I cant have 50000000 TVS and computers.

Exactly, is there something wrong with that? I mean, it's unhealthy to try eating 5kg of meat daily, it's impractical to have rooms with 7 doors and its useless to have 5 toilets in a bathroom.

Individuality doesn't mean "consume until you are physically unable to do so. Consume as much as you can".

calinis wrote:

No there has to be a central planning commitee to say how much people have to produce. These people can manipulate it.

This "central comitee" as you call it is conformed by the people.

calinis wrote:

Obviously because scarity exists.

No, there's plenty of resources, yet you get those taking for themselves ammounts of resources their families wouldn't be able to spend in generations.

Capitalism is simply based on that principle.

calinis wrote:

It doesn't matter. I like having lots of stuff and I would fight anyone who wants to limit my freedom.

See how you're greedy? See how your mediocre individuality depends on the ammount of things you have? See that you're not worth by yourself but by what you have? You'd sacrifice yourself just to have more than others... You're worth nothing with that mentality. If you keep thinking that way when you mature, really, take care...

Quote :

Exactly, is there something wrong with that? I mean, it's unhealthy to try eating 5kg of meat daily, it's impractical to have rooms with 7 doors and its useless to have 5 toilets in a bathroom.

Individuality doesn't mean "consume until you are physically unable to do so. Consume as much as you can".

Well nobody has any say about what I can and cannot consume. I know certain things are unhealthy, but wth? What if I like having lots of suger and fat....? I dont want to live on broccoli and rice because you say it's unhealthy to eat what I want to eat. Same goes for other things. It's impossible to provide every single person with a ton of stuff, so what we want has to be limited.

Quote :

This "central comitee" as you call it is conformed by the people.

Just any people? Like you and I? Are certain "speical" people?

Quote :

No, there's plenty of resources, yet you get those taking for themselves ammounts of resources their families wouldn't be able to spend in generations.

Capitalism is simply based on that principle.

There's not even resources for people to have what they want. People will have to sacrifce certain things.

Quote :

See how you're greedy? See how your mediocre individuality depends on the ammount of things you have? See that you're not worth by yourself but by what you have? You'd sacrifice yourself just to have more than others... You're worth nothing with that mentality. If you keep thinking that way when you mature, really, take care...

I'm simply saying that people dont want to be limited to what they can. What if having stuff brings people happiness...? Are you going to destroy my happiness? It has nothing to do with me wanting more than others for the sake of it; it's because certain things give me benefit.

calinis wrote:

Well nobody has any say about what I can and cannot consume. I know certain things are unhealthy, but wth? What if I like having lots of suger and fat....? I dont want to live on broccoli and rice because you say it's unhealthy to eat what I want to eat. Same goes for other things. It's impossible to provide every single person with a ton of stuff, so what we want has to be limited.

My point is simple. People govern themselves, they limit themselves. Themselves.

calinis wrote:

Just any people? Like you and I? Are certain "speical" people?

Like you and me and anyone else.

calinis wrote:

There's not even resources for people to have what they want. People will have to sacrifce certain things.

There are more than enough resources and there are a lot of misemployed resources, both natural and workforce.

For example, USA. USA's milk production is enough to provide every single Unitedstatian with three daily glasses of milk. Every single one. Now, some won't take even a drop of milk daily. Others will take a glass or two per week and others will take like 2-3 glasses a day. There will be enough to provide those who want 4-5 glasses a day and even those who want 8-10 glasses a day. That means there's enough milk production in the USA to suffice, not only needs but desire.

Similar equations repeat with other kinds of resources.

calinis wrote:

I'm simply saying that people dont want to be limited to what they can.

There's always a limit. Not being able to acknowledge that is either ignorance, immaturity or a combination of both.

calinis wrote:

What if having stuff brings people happiness...? Are you going to destroy my happiness?

Who says people won't have stuff?

calinis wrote:

It has nothing to do with me wanting more than others for the sake of it; it's because certain things give me benefit.

Food gives you benefit, everyone gets food. Water brings you benefit, everyone will have water.

Be more clear.

Quote :

My point is simple. People govern themselves, they limit themselves. Themselves.

Some people want to get the maximum benefit they can, but are unable to. You cant expect everyone to govern themselves when people are selfish.

Quote :

Like you and me and anyone else.

Everyone is involved in the central planning commitee? Who are the people that give production quotas...? And how can we be assured that they are reasonable?

Quote :

For example, USA. USA's milk production is enough to provide every single Unitedstatian with three daily glasses of milk. Every single one. Now, some won't take even a drop of milk daily. Others will take a glass or two per week and others will take like 2-3 glasses a day. There will be enough to provide those who want 4-5 glasses a day and even those who want 8-10 glasses a day. That means there's enough milk production in the USA to suffice, not only needs but desire.

Milk production is not based on supply and demand because not anyone can produce milk. You need a lisense. Thus there is a quota which limits milk production despite the high demand and the prices are high because of it. You cant blame capitalism on that. Another reason why the US is not a capitalist country.

Quote :

There's always a limit. Not being able to acknowledge that is either ignorance, immaturity or a combination of both.

Yes but under capitalism, if you have more money, you can buy more stuff.

Quote :

Food gives you benefit, everyone gets food. Water brings you benefit, everyone will have water.

Be more clear.

Having 60000000 video games gives me benefit.

calinis wrote:

Some people want to get the maximum benefit they can, but are unable to.

Communism will allow a common maximum benefit.

calinis wrote:

You cant expect everyone to govern themselves when people are selfish.

We will just remove selfish people. They'll either will have to adapt, leave society or be repressed.

calinis wrote:

Everyone is involved in the central planning commitee?

Yes.

calinis wrote:

Who are the people that give production quotas...? And how can we be assured that they are reasonable?

Production will be focused to supply people's needs. People will determine what they need within a logical frame work (e.g. no one can need a supply of 10kg of meat daily).

calinis wrote:

Milk production is not based on supply and demand because not anyone can produce milk. You need a lisense. Thus there is a quota which limits milk production despite the high demand and the prices are high because of it. You cant blame capitalism on that.

What a way to miss the point, really.

The point is that there are enough resources, simple as that. How do your statements adress that point?

calinis wrote:

Another reason why the US is not a capitalist country.

That doesn't prove in any way USA is not capitalist.

calinis wrote:

Yes but under capitalism, if you have more money, you can buy more stuff.

And if you have less you'll be able to buy less stuff. No discovery. There's still a limit. And in capitalism there will always be those whose acquisitive capabilities depends on others having lesser ones.

calinis wrote:

Having 60000000 video games gives me benefit.

Sixty million games.

Ok, so lets say each game occupies in average 1GB of space of a hard drive. That's 60 million GB, 60,000 TB or 60PB (Sixty Petabytes). Maybe in a couple of years there will be Hard Drives able to support such an ammount of information so if there were 60 million 1GB games available for you to get, most probably via download you'd be able to get them.
Lets say you get a 10GB/s download speed. You'd need 6 million seconds to download them all. That is Around 1,666 hours which translates to around 69 days. With a more conservative speed of 5GB/s you'd take 138 days (37% of a whole year, more than 1/3 of a year). With a dowload speed of 1GB/s you'd take almost two years downloading games... If we used a much more conservative download speed of 512kb/s that would be almost 4 years, nearly 1/3 of the entire time you've been in this planet.

So well, after you spent 1/3 of your year downloading your 60 million games, lets say you dedicate 1 minute playing each. That is 60 million minutes or 1 million hours that is 114 years just dedicating 1 minute to each game. If you dedicated 5 minutes it would be 570 years and 10 mintes well 1,140 years. Lets say you were nuts and were pleased dedicating 1 second to ech game, you'd need 60 million seconds which is 690 days or almost two years. Almost 2 years to just initialize each game. And all this thinking you dedicated your days entirely to the games.

Lets say you take 6 hours/day to do all the necesary activities to keep alive: eating, sleeping and waste disposal. That leaves 18 hours per day dramatically increasing the time you'd take in just intializing all the games to a horrible 920 days which translates into two years and a half. 2 years and a half just initializing games...

Lets say now you have a "productive life" that allows you to dedicate most of your free time to games and lets say you get 8 hours of free time during weekdays and 18 during weekends. It's 76 hours a week you can dedicate to games or 10.86 hours per day, again increasing alot the time you'd take. So if you were pleased by just taking 1 second per game, worked and performed activities necesary to live you'd take 4 years.

I don't see how having those 60 million games would bring you a benefit, just getting them takes a lot of time and you wouldn't be able to play them... Where's the benefit?

Considering you lived 80 years and were to dedicate all your free time to games and dedicated a decent 1 hour to each game considering you'd be able to play lets say 11 games a day and that you already are 13 so you got 67 years left, your logical maximum is 269,000 games. That's thinking you were to have a life as someone that just works, eats, sleeps(very few), pees, shits and plays games and that never gets a single interruption to play those games, oh and that plays all games just once.

But lets consider you stop working at the age of 50 leaving you for 30 years the posibility to play 18 games a day again.

For 67 years you would play 15.6 games a day with a total of 345,655 games.

That would be your logical maximum if you were to just sleep few, work, eat and play.

But lets say you were to have a relatively normal life.

Lets say you dedicated just 2 years of your life to play 11 games a day, then you'd get other activities to do, you'd go out with friends, family, you'd build your family, you'd travel, whatever. And you play just an average of .5 games a day for 65 years.

Your logical maximum would be of 19,892 games.

Quote :

We will just remove selfish people. They'll either will have to adapt, leave society or be repressed.

Not very free, then.

Quote :

Production will be focused to supply people's needs. People will determine what they need within a logical frame work (e.g. no one can need a supply of 10kg of meat daily).

Unless alot of people want alot of meat, right? Or they just wont get their extra meat? What if I want more meat than broccoli? What if not many people want to work in the meat producing industry?

Quote :

The point is that there are enough resources, simple as that. How do your statements adress that point?

I'm simply saying we could be producing more milk if we didn't have the quotas.

Quote :

And if you have less you'll be able to buy less stuff. No discovery. There's still a limit. And in capitalism there will always be those whose acquisitive capabilities depends on others having lesser ones.

So the people who do nothing get nothing. That makes logical sense. The people who DO more get more money. With more money, comes more opportunities. Simple as that.

Quote :

Sixty million games......

I know you wouldn' be able to play all the games all the time, but it's variety. I know that I have all the games I could possibly want to have. If I decide to play such-and-such game, I can. And then I get bored of it and decide to play another game. I wont be bored for long. Whereas if I just had one game, I'll eventually get bored.

calinis wrote:

Not very free, then.

Collectivists don't care about the freedom of selfish-by-conviction people.

calinis wrote:

Unless alot of people want alot of meat, right?Or they just wont get their extra meat?

People can't physically metabolize more than 2kg of meat a day. No one would get more than that.

calinis wrote:

What if I want more meat than broccoli?

Tell your mommy to serve more meat than broccoli next time she prepares your meal.

calinis wrote:

What if not many people want to work in the meat producing industry?

Until robotization can take care of meat production, people would realize that there is a determinate meat need so people would organize so that meat production coped with the need.

calinis wrote:

I'm simply saying we could be producing more milk if we didn't have the quotas.

Which in case of considering valid further proves my point.

calinis wrote:

So the people who do nothing get nothing. That makes logical sense. The people who DO more get more money.

calinis wrote:

With more money, comes more opportunities. Simple as that.

Not necesarily. Those who get more get it through exploitation of workers. And they are who determine the opportunities of others will all that money.

calinis wrote:

I know you wouldn' be able to play all the games all the time, but it's variety. I know that I have all the games I could possibly want to have. If I decide to play such-and-such game, I can. And then I get bored of it and decide to play another game. I wont be bored for long. Whereas if I just had one game, I'll eventually get bored.

According to my example of Logical Maximum Consumption you'd be able to get around 19,892 games considering they were even created. This means you'd get more than you'd actually play.

Quote :

Until robotization can take care of meat production, people would realize that there is a determinate meat need so people would organize so that meat production coped with the need.

I already said "what if there is a limited supply of those wanting to work in the meat producing industry?" Would that mean people have to shift jobs to a different industry in order to meet the demand? Not everyone wants to help the "common good". Under capitalism, I can have whatever job I want!

Quote :

Which in case of considering valid further proves my point.

Wouldn't there be quotas in your ideal world...? In a free market, people dont produce more than the demand to achieve equlibrium. So waste is minimized.

Quote :

Not necesarily. Those who get more get it through exploitation of workers. And they are who determine the opportunities of others will all that money.

Not really. If I create my own business, who am I exploiting? In fact, quite the opposite, the workers would thank me for giving them jobs!

Quote :

According to my example of Logical Maximum Consumption you'd be able to get around 19,892 games considering they were even created. This means you'd get more than you'd actually play.

That would mean there would have to be a ton of people in the video game industry and working long hours in order to produce that for every single individual....wow....what makes you think people would want to be involved in the video game industry if they have to work significantly long hours....?

Zealot, what's the point of debating calinis?