BF2S Forums A Bipolar Society

Home wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Zukabazuka wrote:

"The reason America has been so successful in its history, even including its smooth inception and early transitions, is because it relies on the skill and wisdom of the best"
Like getting black people and use them as slavery and pay them shit?

Sold by black people to white people then resold to other white people.

Have to love the one guy who always tries to divert responsibility by bringing up this fact.

It's a valid point though...  Slavery is nothing new.  The only things that made the Atlantic Slave Trade different from previous slave trading schemes were that it was on a much greater scale than most previous slave trading and it was hereditary.

Much of Africa was in a state of tribal warfare during the Age of Exploration.  Prisoners of war were sold as slaves to whoever was willing to buy.  Of course, the Europeans did eventually turn it into an actual business where slavers would raid villages, capture people, and then sell them as slaves.

Still, none of this would have been possible without the help of certain Africans themselves.

So, basically, the moral of the story is that, while the slave trade itself was founded on racism, it was a system run by more than just white people.  Arabs had set up their own slave trade in Africa before the Europeans even got there.

Turquoise wrote:

Home wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Sold by black people to white people then resold to other white people.

Have to love the one guy who always tries to divert responsibility by bringing up this fact.

It's a valid point though...  Slavery is nothing new.  The only things that made the Atlantic Slave Trade different from previous slave trading schemes were that it was on a much greater scale than most previous slave trading and it was hereditary.

Much of Africa was in a state of tribal warfare during the Age of Exploration.  Prisoners of war were sold as slaves to whoever was willing to buy.  Of course, the Europeans did eventually turn it into an actual business where slavers would raid villages, capture people, and then sell them as slaves.

Still, none of this would have been possible without the help of certain Africans themselves.

So, basically, the moral of the story is that, while the slave trade itself was founded on racism, it was a system run by more than just white people.  Arabs had set up their own slave trade in Africa before the Europeans even got there.

I know, I'm just saying that there's always someone who makes sure everyone knows that we didn't do it first, as if that makes it any more acceptable.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming Maniac wrote:

the rest are liberals that wish him an untimely and painful death

I wouldn't wish anyone a painful death based solely on their statements.
Actions maybe.

Um lets see

Genocide of the native Americans
Civil war
Slavery
Segregation and discrimination based on race
Entry into two world wars based solely on self-interest and commercial gain
Taking the world to the brink of annihilation due to congenital paranoia (Cold war)
Fucking up SE Asia to impose one political doctrine over another
Fucking up the ME in favour of religious nutballs hoping to get their ticket on the spaceship with the great electric bunny
Abandoning the UN and the Geneva Convention for who knows what reason

Yeah, I really admire the US.

Australia did so much better am I right?

I'm sorry Flaming Maniac but your OP is full of shit. It makes you sound like someone who's entire life experience and world view comes from a book. How exactly does socialism "done right" rely on smothering the best? I live in a socialist country and I can tell you there are no wage caps here, there are no ceilings on success, there are no limits to what I can achieve should I set my mind to it, there are no programs of talent or intelligence 'equalisation'. I myself am studying for a PHD thanks to a research program funded by... yes, you guessed it... the Government; how dare they stifle my talent by paying me for my attempts to advance our base of knowledge in the field of technology. The only major difference between my socialist country and your capitalist country is that we pay more taxes here and attempt to foster a society where we all look out for each other a little... the idea being that you yourself might need a hand if you're down on your luck some day.

Your views on Communism are also quite frankly ridiculous being that Communism has never actually been "done right" on this planet. Also, one could argue that cut-throat capitalism also reduces humans to robots in the sense that one becomes a slave to the almighty dollar. You can labour under the idea that invading countries and killing people in order to look out for one's own interests is okay... but you'd be fooling yourself to a certain extent. Relativism seems to be the new "truth" these days but at the end of the day one must ask themselves how they would feel if they were on the receiving end before deciding if their actions are right or wrong.

You talk about people viewing the world in black and white and yet seemingly put forward the American world view as being absolutely right. The main reason capitalism held sway in the United States is that in an area so vast it was the only economic model that would work and sustain itself. Communism would never have worked, just look at the failures of the equally vast USSR. So congratulations, you have a society based on mankind's most base and primitive instincts... well done.

Your OP completely neglects what I regard to be the most important aspect of maintaining a successful, functional society in this world... moderation.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-12-15 03:23:01)

Home wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Zukabazuka wrote:

"The reason America has been so successful in its history, even including its smooth inception and early transitions, is because it relies on the skill and wisdom of the best"
Like getting black people and use them as slavery and pay them shit?

Sold by black people to white people then resold to other white people.

Have to love the one guy who always tries to divert responsibility by bringing up this fact.

Have to love the one guy who not only ignores the fact that it happened, but tries to foist responsibility onto someone whose ancestors were Irish immigrants. So you can stick a sock in it.

Home wrote:

I know, I'm just saying that there's always someone who makes sure everyone knows that we didn't do it first, as if that makes it any more acceptable.

It's also hypocritical to bring it up as a special case.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-12-15 04:06:38)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming Maniac wrote:

the rest are liberals that wish him (lowing) an untimely and painful death

I wouldn't wish anyone a painful death based solely on their statements. He's entitled to an opinion.
Actions maybe.

Um lets see

Genocide of the native Americans (they were killing themselves)
Civil war (invented by Al Gore)
Slavery (like the light bulb, invented in the US!)
Segregation and discrimination based on race (hey, we spread the wealth around on that one)
Entry into two world wars based solely on self-interest and commercial gain (the rest of the world's intentions were feckin' noble)
Taking the world to the brink of annihilation due to congenital paranoia (Cold war) (the Soviets were trusty fuzzy-wubbles)
Fucking up SE Asia to impose one political doctrine over another (SE Asia was fine and dandy on its own and with French influence)
Fucking up the ME in favour of religious nutballs hoping to get their ticket on the spaceship with the great electric bunny (what?)
Abandoning the UN and the Geneva Convention for who knows what reason (a) corrupt; b) everybody's special little black ops followed that to the letter)

Yeah, I really admire the USworld.

Fixed.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There is no possible argument which can justify or excuse slavery, especially not the form practised in the US.

Nobody's justifying it, here...

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-12-15 04:13:57)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Home and Turquoise are excusing slavery.

Home wrote:

We would be better off today if slavery hadn't happened.

Turquoise wrote:

Slavery is nothing new. [...] So, basically, the moral of the story is that, while the slave trade itself was founded on racism, it was a system run by more than just white people.

The first one doesn't match the description. The second one, maybe...if you were to radically twist it around.

Anyone who thinks socialism relies on smothering the best in society is quite simply blinded by their own uninformed propaganda.

Did you honestly expect people to take the rest of your post seriously after that?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-12-15 05:54:00)

So define socialism then FM seeing as you know better what kind of governments we have in Europe

And is it really only one way to execute socialistic policy for it to be called socialism ?

Edit: Also you are infact the one painting the world black or white when you disregard the fact that there is variations between US capitalism and communism, you only bring up the "perfect" sense of those two.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Australia:

Entry into two world wars based solely on self-interest and commercial gain - No

Yes, because America letting most of East Asia get conquered by Japan would've been a great thing to do.  /facepalm

Dilbert_X wrote:

Taking the world to the brink of annihilation due to congenital paranoia (Cold war) - No

Yes, because America letting the Soviets take over even more of the world would have been a good idea.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Abandoning the UN and the Geneva Convention for who knows what reason - No

To be fair, the U.N. decided to stop enforcing its own resolutions against Iraq before we decided to enforce them unilaterally.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Home and Turquoise are excusing slavery.

Explaining why something happened isn't the same thing as approving it or excusing it.  If anything, Home was protesting it.  All I was doing was explaining how slavery is something that can be blamed mostly on human nature and greed rather than on any particular race.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ATG wrote:

I see the point and the deep thinking behind it FM, but the post had all the charisma of a drowned cat.

You need to put some populism behind those notions, make it easier to read and less eye blurring and consider running for office.

srs.

I hate myself so much when I write essays that I am forced to write in a "charismatic" manner I want to punch something. Instead of doing that, I write whatever I thought about last night to you kids. I enjoy being the drowned cat.

edit: I was actually putting off writing college essays at the time. "Write about someone who has influenced you" jesus christ.

The rest of you get a pass until later. Except Uzique. If he doesn't respond to me, I don't respond to him.

Funny how this applies very well to your post here Uzique:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You are really proving my point here, both with this redirection from my original point (you put words in deez's mouth and insulted him for it) and in your replies to Pug. You can use your intellect as much as you want in these pointless digressions, you might even prove yourself the victor in some cases. The problem is no one cares when you are arguing about something so asinine as how brilliant Shakespeare is. Substance is vital to interesting debate, of which intellect is of little consequence.

Perhaps this why people feel DAST has degraded. People over-analyzing posts looking for stupid "gotcha" moments. People trying to "win" in any manner they can, regardless of where the debate is. People should be in dissension to further understanding, not for some archaic need for dominance.

I didn't respond to that thread because my original posts were deleted and an AWM was issued due to off topic posting; I mean come on, are you fucking kidding me? As if I would turn down the opportunity to rip you a new asshole over the topic of Shakespeare- I see nothing out of you that qualifies as anything more than dilettanteism. You had a superficial understanding of Shakespeare and now expect a careful point-by-point analysis of your half-arsed 'political' ramblings? If your 'essay' even had a point or focus then perhaps I could find something to argue with; a few poorly construed points about socialism, America and communism don't really leave me with much to say in regards of actual serious critique. I apologise. Perhaps if you understood socialism and communism then I could more properly engage with you, for now this will remain under my original classification of 'arse-talk preceding a hand-on-chest God Bless America oath'.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-12-15 15:24:51)

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Australia:

Entry into two world wars based solely on self-interest and commercial gain - No

Yes, because America letting most of East Asia get conquered by Japan would've been a great thing to do.  /facepalm

That's not the reason you entered the second world war.

So, are you saying you would rather we didn't get involved in the war at all?

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Taking the world to the brink of annihilation due to congenital paranoia (Cold war) - No

Yes, because America letting the Soviets take over even more of the world would have been a good idea.

Where were the Soviets invading? Let's see Afghanistan........

You do realize they gained most of their influence through proxies, right?  They manipulated several governments and supported various revolutions.  We did the same, but that was the nature of the Cold War -- who could manipulate the most countries.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Abandoning the UN and the Geneva Convention for who knows what reason - No

To be fair, the U.N. decided to stop enforcing its own resolutions against Iraq before we decided to enforce them unilaterally.

What about the Geneva Convention?

Well, as I was implying, the U.N. isn't very good at implementing its own rules, including those.  We were able to break those without much consequence, just like Iraq broke the resolutions against them without much consequence until we started up a coalition.

I'm not saying I agreed with the war, but this is how things progressed.