J'ai du mal avec les gens suffisants et supérieurs aussi.
comment on dit déja? c'est l'hospital qui se fout de la charité?  Oui plutôt xD Je comprends mieux.
Après, c'est assez compliqué de répondre à ça... Parce que dans l'idée, je suis plutôt d'accord sur le fait de ne pas faire confiance aveuglément à un livre "sacré" et de penser par soi-même. Cependant, j'ai un peu de mal avec le fait de se considérer supérieur aux autres pour cette raison. Quelque part, dire que tu es supérieur à quelqu'un d'autre parce que tu n'as pas ses croyances, pour moi, c'est un peu comme si quelqu'un te disais qu'il est supérieur à toi parce qu'il croit en xxxx (remplacer par n'importe quelle religion). Et ça j'ai un peu de mal.
Après, comme toujours, chacun est libre de penser ce qu'il veut.
Je trouve que la tolérance et l'ouverture d'esprit sont deux grandes faiblesses de la gauche. Ecouter oui, décider que tout se vaut non. Il y a des valeurs, des opinions, des combats qui sont supérieurs aux autres. Cette course au petit combat est un héritage de l'URSS et c'est un héritage qu'il faut combattre. |
|
|
|
Super. Merci pour ce commentaire d'une grande richesse, qui apporte tant de nouvelles perspectives à nos façons de voir les choses. "Je vois une pomme, tu appelles ça une banane, mais oui si une pomme est jaune et longiligne alors oui ça peut être une banane mais pour moi c'est une pomme." -_- Ok. On utilise les mêmes mots mais ils veulent pas dire la même chose pour tout le monde. Effectivement, pour toi mOgliE, la révolution serait de saisir les moyens de productions et mettre tout les vilains bourgeois qui gentrifient les centres-ville au cachot.  Pourquoi pas reconstruire la Bastille pendant que vous y êtes ?  C'est moi ou au lieu d'arriver à un consensus sur le fait qu'on ait mal utiliser un outil (le mot révolution) tu préfères garder ton attitude méprisante, ignorant au passage que c'est TOI qui utilise mal le mot? Désolé mon gros mais c'est la définition du Larousse qui fait foi. Et la définition du Larousse ne correspond pas au BTC. Donc avec ta métaphore pourrie, c'est toi l'abruti qui désigne une banane comme étant une pomme. Heureusement que StarenseN a 3 neurones de plus que toi et qu'on a réussi à tomber d'accord sur le fait qu'un mot a été éloigné de sa définition première. Ce qui n'est pas étonnant vu l'imperfection que le langage représente comme outil de communication. Super Strawman d'ailleurs. Il est splendide. D'autant plus splendide que ce ne serait PAS une révolution au sens de la définition décrite plus haut puisque ce ne serait pas quelque chose de fondamentalement nouveau puisque déjà théorisé. Vraiment un bon gros épouvantail de merde que tu as fabriqué tout seul dans ton coin. Je te remercie néanmoins pour m'avoir rappelé que la fonction ignore existe, et que certains individus ne méritent pas qu'on les lise. Les fanatiques en particulier. |
|
|
|
bullshit
C'est pas grave. C'est grave que tu ais le droit de vote par contre mais bon, l'avantage d'un pays non démocratique c'est que les gens comme toi n'ont pas plus d'importance que les gens comme moi ^^ Et ton égo, il va bien ? C'est pas parce que t'es pas d'accord (même s'il faut avouer qu'il est effectivement un peu... particulier, voire même complètement perché), que t'es obligé de te considérer comme supérieur. Très bien merci. Navré mais je ne crois pas à l'égalité des opinions. Quand un type tient sa morale et ses arguments d'un bouquin écrit il y a 2000 ans par 3 connards et m'affirme que c'est la parole divine, je lui suis supérieur. Moralement, intellectuellement et culturellement. Ce qui ne veut pas dire que je me prend pour un surhomme, à peu près n'importe qui lui est supérieur à partir du moment où il essaie de réfléchir par lui même. C'est plus du mépris pour Oscar que j'exprime plutôt que de l'arrogance. |
|
|
|
|
OP is not mine I can't change it.
That's why I'm posting now that you shouldn't PM me for this.
Anyway no one should directly PM a campaign manager to apply. If you want to apply the thread is the right place.
|
|
|
|
|
Please all note that the campaign is still closed.
Anyone Pming me to get in the campaign will be added to my personnal bannlist and will never get in the campaign.
|
|
|
|
bullshit
T'es complètement craqué du cul toi, t'es au courant? je sais même pas quelle est la partie la plus aberrante, la comparaison entre l'écologie et une religion alors qu'il s'agit d'une science (qui fait largement consensus en plus), de l'impôt à la dîme, des initiatives écologiques à un truc aberrant, des lycéens qui se bougent le cul à des zombies... ou le fait que Dieu soit juif? En tout cas t'es clairement pas fini. Papa et maman ils ont oublié de te donner à manger quand t'étais petit? C'est pour ça que ton cerveau s'est jamais développé? C'est pas grave. C'est grave que tu ais le droit de vote par contre mais bon, l'avantage d'un pays non démocratique c'est que les gens comme toi n'ont pas plus d'importance que les gens comme moi ^^ |
|
|
|
Bitcoin a résolu un problème important et c'est en soit très élégant. Envoyer de la valeur sans permission est incroyable.
Ok si c'est ça ta définition de révolutionnaire alors BTC est révolutionnaire. Mais la définition Larousse dit qu'est révolutionnaire ce "Qui apporte de grands changements, est d'une grande nouveauté dans un domaine donné". Donc je dirais que BTC n'est pas révolutionnaire car n'étant pas utilisé factuellement, il n'apporte pas de changement dans la société. Mais bon après c'est du détail. Si ta définition de révolutionnaire c'est "qui résout un problème donné de façon simple et élégante" alors le BTC est révolutionnaire oui. |
|
|
|
C est vrai que c est chiant de devoir reflechir un peu
Et c'est manifestement chiant d'argumenter. Vu que tu te contentes de venir avec ton aire pédant dire "Hmm... vous êtes stupides... Plébéiens va..." et tu repars. Passionnantes interventions que les tiennes. N'hésites pas à continuer car c'est très intéressant. Bien sûr tu pourrais expliquer l'utilisation possible du BTC mais je suppose que juste un air méprisant ça suffit. C'est assez ironique, alors que ma démarche est plutôt de justement ne pas savoir, autant j'ai pu lire de certitudes et aucune projection de la part de gens qui enterrent Bitcoin. En plus d'être insensé, exemple, Linux (analogie pomme/poutre mais bon) fait transiter 98% d'internet. Sans parler qu'Android, MacOS sont basés dessus.
Alors le début de ta phrase n'est pas français je crois, en tout cas je n'ai pas compris ^^ Je n'enterre pas le BTC. Juste je considère que ce n'est pas la révolution divine que certains annoncent. C'est une techno, sympa, qui peut être utile dans certains cas. Point. C'est pas la révolution du 21ème siècle faut arrêter de déconner. |
|
|
|
There are kids in 5th grade who know how to source. Apparently neither of you do. That isn't a source, its a picture with ZERO substantiation. Go back to grade school.
It's a graphic with direct informations. Can't you read a graphic? Sources are needed to check informations, not to understand them. And it's funny how you talk a lot about my education while not considering the fact that I might, just might, have a good one. In science. |
|
|
|
C'est un peu comme linux... OS libre, robuste et gratuit... et bien les gens ont préféré continuer à payer pour utiliser windows  Tiens très bonne analogie. Surtout si on considère à quel point utiliser le BTC c'est cher. Et pas la peine de parler de Western Union, je parle d'une utilisation quotidienne. |
|
|
|
BTW the distinction is irrelevant anyway.
Ahahahahah The distinction between action and result of action is irrelevant. Sure. You're one dumb shit for sure! |
|
|
|
I find it terrifying you are teaching other people. Who taught you how to source? I see a meaningless picture.
You got precise figures and dates on a measured graphic. You don't need source, you need to see if you can find your own contradicting source. But it's not like you could as you don't seem to be able to use Google. |
|
|
|
On attend toujours que tu contre-argumentes ce qui serait fallacieux d'après toi. On attend tjs dans le thread dédié ("BTC et ses limites").
Ben c'est fait. Quand on explique que, factuellement, le BTC ne sert à rien dans l'économie vous dites "non mais si mais ça te donne une liberté nouvelle" oui super et alors? Si personne n'en veut de cette liberté, quel est l'intérêt? Ben aucun. Et l'adoption montre que l'immense majorité des gens s'en foutent de cette liberté. Mais continuez à vénérer une techno qui ne sert à rien. Jm'en fous ça fait monter les prix ^^ |
|
|
|
I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the very known social programs of USA xD Well known for this yeah |
|
|
|
|
Could it be that monopoly of big companies isn't a good thing? That capitalism is indeed just dictatorship with more steps?
|
|
|
|
You conveniently left out several requisites for the definition of a republic to include only the part you believe makes your argument. That is like saying Usain Bolt isn't a world class runner because you only describe everything above his waist, and use his lack of legs as an argument. More specifically a Constitutional Republic is not mob rule. Very sorry I didn't use the same dictionnary than you. It's clearly manipulation from my side and not just you who should have given your complete definition and how it proves your point. If I have to complete your argument because you were too lazy don't accuse me of manipulation. Please prove your assertion.
Why do I need to ask? You are the one making the argument, either make it and substantiate it or don't. lets go over your supposed changes point by point.
1- "Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people"
This has been claimed before and failed. Furthermore the government consists of people, they are on in the same.
Sure direct democracy has already been put in place. Can you point out where?
2- "Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be"
Yet the abolition of private property is one of the core tenets of Communism. Thank you for supporting my argument private property should not be abolished.
No absolutely not, abolition of private property of the means of production is core tenets of Communism, not abolition of all private property. You would know this if, as you said, you had really studied Marx. You're welcome as I also believe private property should not be abolished. It seems we agree on something.
3- "No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though"
You are simultaneously describing 3 exclusive concepts. How do you even manage to wipe your ass with that kind of lack of logic?
Very sorry your brain can't handle so much complexity. Don't hesitate if you need a drawing.
4- "No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell"
Oh, so no investment huh?
Exactly, no trade shares means no investment, because there can be no investment without trade share Well that will go over well. I am sure that won't have any negative consequences like, not allowing peopel to afford to buy homes or cars, or other basic necessities or anything.
Clearly it's the same to forbid share trade and the right to own a house. Not at all a biased stupid comparison here.
5- "No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it"
That sure sounds a lot like fascism, as do some of your other points. So you are going to compel people to work for a company by force of law when they don't want to? That sounds a lot like slavery.
Exactly because It's what I said. How did you manage to read "Company closing can be nationalized" as "people will have to work without wanting to"?
6- "At least half of each company is possessed by the workers"
Why would anyone invest in a crating a company (oh right I forgot investments are banned) if they immediately will have half of their investment taken from them? Also, tell me, how do the workers own half of a company if there are no shares? Your total lack of logic is astounding.
Your ideas are nothing but pure fantasy that collapse under even the most superficial examination.
Dude, you can't imagine a company without shares, what do you want me to explain you if you can't even imagine a company without external private investment funds while 99% of companies ARE ALREADY created without them?? |
|
|
|
There are an infinite number of potential explanations, but lets just start with one. How about a combination of nature and nurture being the cause? Happy now? You were in fact using a false choice fallacy. OH NOES! DON'T REFUSE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ARGUMENT! I don't know how I would cope if you don't bother supporting your own argument! Is this supposed to motivate me some how, you refusing to make your own points? Duuuuuuuuuumb. The conclusion of the studies might be discussed but not the facts described. And the facts described are enough to prove that environment > genetics. This is you making the argument of a conclusion in the nature vs nurture debate, you are just to ignorant to realize what your own arguments consist of. Speaking of reading, you can't even read and understand your own words. Please read the definition of nature vs nurture: "The nature versus nurture debate involves whether human behavior is determined by the environment, either prenatal or during a person's life, or by a person's genes. " It talks about individual behavior. I talk about social and economical status. In other terms, nature vs nurture is about how one acts, I'm talking about what one obtains after his actions. Hence your whole critics is based on an argument I never made. Please think about the difference between the two then come back. |
|
|
|
a Republic is not mob rule.
That's the definition of a republic: "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." That's not a mob rule? Supreme power held by the people and their elected representatives is not mob rule for you? Can you define "mob rule" then please? Because clearly the "supreme power is held by the people" should be rather close to my definition of "mob rule". You keep saying Communism has changed, but you can't define anything about it that is different.
Because you never asked. Main differences of Communism and Neo-Communism: -Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people -Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be -No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though -No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell. -No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it -At least half of each company is possessed by the workers. See how it's different? How it has evolved? How it has NOTHING to see with what Marx imagined? Because Marx was a genius but never could have foreseen internet, which allows so much more local management. |
|
|
|
Again, your first point goes back to the question of scale. Even if some small homogeneous communities can operate Communism effectively does not prove it can be scaled to an international level. Western countries are below replacement level birthrates from natives. The populations are increasing because of uncontrolled illegal immigration, which is essentially proving my point.
Amazing. This amount of stupidity or bad faith is incredible. So you're right if population increases when ressources are fairly distributed, and you're right if it doesn't. Easy to be right when you just don't give argument but a two way assertion right? All social sciences are the least scientific form of science because they are the least able to follow rigorous scientific method. This is not even a debate, it is well known even among social scientists. FFS, the man who was said to have invented Sociology as a science is the originator of the concept of the scientific hierarchy itself. Are you that dumb? Don't you understand the difference between being less rigorous than maths and having irrelevant results because it's not scientific enough? You clearly said Sociology results shouldn't be taken into account because of how unscientific the method is. If you admit it IS scientific methodology then you must take its results into account then I agree with you and you'll have to answer to the last 40 years of sociology studies. I'm ok with that clearly. The premise you are presenting here is called a "false choice" logical fallacy. You proscribe two potential options, and exclude any other possibilities when many more options exist.
Nope it's a logical fallacy if you can provide a thrid option. Otherwise it's not a fallacy but a descprition of a reality. Provide a third explanation or take this accusation back. So far you haven't provided any of these studies for review anyway, so your point is moot. Again, the nature vs nurture debate is NO WHERE NEAR being concluded. I won't provide any study before you admit sociology is a scientific methodology providing acceptable and reliable results otherwise there is no point in providing you with anything as you'll simply deny them. Once you admit this I'll gladly give you a dozen of studies showing that your situation is far more linked to your living environment as a child thatn at your personal abilities. Oh and by the way if you knew how to read (which I really start doubting) you would see that I NEVER talk about the Nature vs nurture debate which is an interesting opened debate. It is not my point, you simply use another logical fallacy to make me say shit and debunk it after. Yeah I agree Nature vs Nurture isn't settled. Never said it was. Not my point. Not what I said. |
|
|
|
"Direct Democracy" is just a rebranding of a pure Democracy, which is just a more palatable way of saying mob rule. Under mob rule individuals and minority groups have no rights, because the mob can always just vote their rights away. Democracy is by no means infallible, in fact it makes the populations much more easily controlled because getting people to operate as collective unthinking herds is a lot easier than gaming a Republic for example with protected individual rights and rule of law. You just declaring that it can be done is nothing more than your imagination. Your fantasies do not count as substantiation for your arguments. ALL RIGHTS are property rights. Without property rights you have no rights of ANY KIND.
That's incredible. How can you be so blind? Ok so we're going to try to use your brain a bit. What kind of social organization is NOT a mob rule? Oh, I see, the world is different now, so Communism will work this time, promise! You are just making a long form rephrasing of "it wasn't true Communism", IE the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The world has changed, but Communism has not, and the basic elements that make Communism a failure have not changed in society either.
Yes it has, and a lot. You being so deep up your own ass doesn't change the fact that no one refers to Das Kapital as the Bible nowadays because people learned from past mistakes and have changed the idea of Communism. If you think it hasn't changed, you just show your ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
