how amusing
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Oct 05, 2007 9:10 PM EDT |
Marxists supporting Free Software side-by-side with Libertarians? http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/070622-tk.html Marx and Rand would probably be insulted, infuriated, or both. I think it's hilarious. |
| jacog Oct 05, 2007 10:05 PM EDT |
South Africa's government is also pro free software and also happens to be lead by a marxist party. |
| tracyanne Oct 06, 2007 12:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:Marx and Rand would probably be insulted, infuriated, or both. I think it's hilarious. I think you might be right.The thing is Marxism is not the same as Socialism, as defined by the authors. It is however very close to what I mean when I say "I'm a Socialist". |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 06, 2007 12:35 AM EDT |
I just love this image: http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/science/linux-socialis... See?! Linux == communist! |
| dinotrac Oct 06, 2007 2:54 AM EDT |
>See?! Linux == communist! Well, the GPL'd segment is pretty close to that in concept. By disallowing binary-only distribution, the GPL removes any potential capital value from software. The whole notion that money in free software comes from providing service is very compatible with Marx's labor theory of value, but is more extreme. Marx would agree that labor could be congealed into a thing and that the thing acquired value as the result of the labor. GPL'd software doesn't permit that. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 06, 2007 6:06 AM EDT |
Solidarity Forever! |
| gus3 Oct 06, 2007 8:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:Solidarity Forever!In what? ;-) |
| ColonelPanik Oct 06, 2007 8:27 AM EDT |
gus3, That's from the IWW or Industrial Workers of the World
or as they were known in their time, Wobblies. A union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWW The thought still counts, a union is a community and community is Linux. Solidarity in Linux Forever! Tux. Guaranteeing your freedom. There is no alternative. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 06, 2007 9:18 AM EDT |
I think the fundamental difference can be seen in the final paragraph, where the Marxists advocate taking software out of private ownership, to be handed out by government to those who "need" it. My conclusion from the article is that they believe what they see as the seeming "non-ownership" of F/OSS is what makes F/OSS work: a condition they conclude can be created by force. It's the same mistake Marx made right from the beginning. No surprise here. The facts of the article are clear, and correct. Unfortunately, the Merchantilist system of copyright and patent enforcing the bemoaned software monopolies are not identified for what they are. "Capitalism" is blamed when "Capitalism" has nothing to do with it. Their advocating of government control of software follows this blind spot, since they are advocating more of what causes the problems they are railing against. The choice to release one's work under GPL is a Capitalist choice, because one owns one's own work. The utilitarian argument as given by Eric Raymond is just as much a reason to do so as is the social benefit reason given by Richard Stallman. The fact that one attracts Libertarians while the other Socialists is interesting, yes, but no reason to fall into a paradoxical fugue. The Libertarians want to increase the freedom for people to choose. The Marxists want to remove that freedom. I believe that freedom works, so I am not a Marxist. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 07, 2007 5:40 AM EDT |
MBA In Mexico The American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied, “Only a little while.” The American then asked why he didn't stay out longer and catch more fish. The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs. The American then asked, “But what do you do with the rest of your time?” The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siesta with my wife Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.” The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and I could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats; eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman, you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually NYC, where you will run your expanding enterprise.” The Mexican fisherman asked, “But how long will this all take?” To which the American replied, “15 to 20 years.” “But what then?” The American laughed and said, “That's the best part. When the time is right, you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich. You would make millions!” “Millions... Then what?” The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take a siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.” |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
he American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take a siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.” You forgot the part about avoiding the corrupt police and dodging the bullets from the narco wars. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 07, 2007 7:07 AM EDT |
dinotrac, Where is that, Miami, San Diego, NYC? And where did that MBA take his vacation? Do not believe what you see on TV or read in the paper! Having lived in 9 different countries/territories the only truth I know is that what is reported is not truth. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 8:24 AM EDT |
CP -- Ummm...Mexico. Sigh. I guess CP is really just PC. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 8:31 AM EDT |
> Marxists supporting Free Software side-by-side with Libertarians? The nice thing about freedom is that it improves what ever system allows it, to whatever extent they allow it. Just ask the Chinese. |
| azerthoth Oct 07, 2007 10:51 AM EDT |
Yup, free to use lead and toxic fillers them export them to the nation that is the antitheses of everything their government believes in. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 07, 2007 5:37 PM EDT |
"Mao periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem."
("Rather a dangerous liberty than a peaceful servitude.") "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." --- George Bernard Shaw "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies...Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others - as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders - serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God." ---HD Thoreau, 1849 "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." ---Daniel Webster |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 8:10 PM EDT |
I really really really like the Webster quote. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 4:54 AM EDT |
Me too. Here's three more for the hack of it. "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed." ---Etienne de la Boetie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down a dark alley, hits them over the head, and rifles their pockets for loose grammar." ---Anon "Those who sell their liberty for security are understandable, if pitiable, creatures. Those who sell the liberty of others for wealth, power, or even a moment's respite deserve only the end of a rope." --- L Neil Smith |
| ColonelPanik Oct 08, 2007 5:06 AM EDT |
Bob, Dude, you have a heart! I want you to be our leader. That Smith quote seems on point and on time! |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2007 6:43 AM EDT |
> Yup, free to use lead and toxic fillers them export them to the nation that is the antitheses of everything their government believes in. And to make a large profit doing so, most of which goes to the corrupt politicians responsible for overseeing matters. However, I was referring to freedom at the individual level, which is now far greater in China then in times past. |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2007 6:44 AM EDT |
> I want you to be our leader. I doubt Bob is running, but (as both he and I have noted in the past) if you want someone of the same mold, vote for Ron Paul. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 7:06 AM EDT |
CP, if you like the Smith quote, he's been running an e-zine since 1995 that I've helped out with: http://www.ncc-1776.org/ He has three articles in this one, for some reason. A burr must have gotten under his saddle. > I want you to be our leader. Absolutely! However, I don't have enough business to hire you, nor do I know what your qualifications are. :^) Heck, for that matter, you don't know what my business is, you _might_not_like_it_. I must echo JD's sentiment, however, that if you mean leader in a less contractual and voluntary sense, Ron Paul is the frontrunner. If he does not win the nomination, I'll be checking out whoever it is that the Libertarians nominate. Too bad Badnarik isn't running this cycle, he's a very good person. What Dr. Paul has going for him most of all is a record of not being bought. Not just "staying bought" like a good politician, but of not getting bought in the first place. It is a rare, maybe unique, condition for a congressman. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 08, 2007 2:42 PM EDT |
Bob_Robertson, jdixon, Sorry guys, the Colonel don't do politics. jdixon, We lived in China for the entire year of 1999. We were on the Island of Hainan. What a trip, the place was like Christmas on steriods! That is compared to the usOFa kind of Christmas. I mean capitalism rampant on a field of human abuse. We can talk of this over coffee sometime. Bob_Robertson, You have a business? 'Puter related I assume? About all I could do is carry the toolbag. I will have to work for ten years after I die but I don't want to do any thing too tricky. A politician being bought? Having lived my first 21 years in the Chicago area and the last 6 years in Louisiana I have no idea that there was any other way. But here in Louisiana at least they are very inexpensive to acquire. And thanks for the link. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 4:10 PM EDT |
> I mean capitalism rampant on a field of human abuse. I am becoming quite convinced that you are still mixing up Capitalism and Marchantilism. Major businesses in China are all still state owned. |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2007 4:32 PM EDT |
> I mean capitalism rampant on a field of human abuse. When government favoritism is for sale to the highest bidder, that's what you tend to get. Those in the favor of government are untouchable, and they know it. In such an environment, abuse is inevitable. As Bob will tell you, that's not really capitalism. One of the common terms for it is cronyism. That's still largely the case, but from what I understand (I know nothing of China firsthand) there's now a large economy that is somewhat outside of the government's control. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 5:41 PM EDT |
I found this article to be quite enlightening concerning the difference between "western" perception and reality in China. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justinchina1.html There is a _lot_ of economic activity now, much of it not taxed which is why it is so vibrant. But the heavy industries and large producers are still either directly or indirectly government run, one reason they can afford to leave so much of their new economy untaxed. Land is still owned by the state, although "ownership" is being respected rhetorically in order to try to promote large-scale investment. Oh, and they really want to look good for the Olympics next year. After that, I'm making no bets. There may be a bit of "retrenchment", as it were. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 09, 2007 3:55 PM EDT |
Bob, Enjoyed that link. But... The author is a westerner, that makes me worry. How much time in country? And the most important thing for me, does he speak, read, write Chinese? This being a Linux forum (though we speak mostly about m$) I don't want to tie up the nettubes for this. Here is my quick view of China: If you were to meet someone from another planet you would have as much but no more in common with that being as you would ever have with a person from China. That is if you don't read, speak, write Chinese. Capitalism and Merchantilism Don't understand that but will try to learn. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 09, 2007 4:47 PM EDT |
CP, my wife is Chinese. Born and raised in Beijing. We met in Tokyo. Need I say more? |
| jdixon Oct 09, 2007 5:26 PM EDT |
> If you were to meet someone from another planet you
would have as much but no more in common with that being as you would ever have with a person from China. That's pretty much true for all the asian cultures, even Japan. At least with Japan we have the advantage of manga and anime to help bridge the gap. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 10, 2007 4:22 AM EDT |
Bob, You have the inside track on knowing China. Get the language and go to China, you can
then tell me what I missed because I never found the handle. jd, >"That's pretty much true for all the Asian cultures, even Japan. At least with Japan we have the advantage of manga and anime to help bridge the gap." Wow, is that humor or some inspired vision you had? Think of the usOFa in those terms. Mickey Mouse. I may be the only senior citizen that reads graphic novels, love em, but never thought of how much they could reflect the national culture. Food for thought! Bob, My main problem with knowing China was that I never new if it was China or Communism that I was beating my head against. China is much bigger and more important than Communism but that doesn't mean that things aren't skewed badly by the present system. |
| jdixon Oct 10, 2007 5:06 AM EDT |
> I may be the only senior citizen that reads graphic novels, love em, but
never thought of how much they could reflect the national culture. All art reflects the culture of the artist. And yes, comics are an art form. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 10, 2007 7:39 AM EDT |
> I never new if it was China or Communism that I was beating my head against. You were banging your head against _bureaucracy_. The "Mandarins" are one of China's defining features. The use of Communism was always merely a word, used as cover for the confiscation of property into the hands of the bureaucracy. Since Deng's assention, it has been legal in China to criticize individuals. Bureaucrats, officials, especially to expose corruption. But even now you may not, ever, criticize the _Party_. The Bureaucracy. The experience of Zeng He is enlightening here, because when he was ordered to return it was because the Mandarins had finally wrested power away from the court eunuchs. They burned his maps, because having people aware that there were other places, other ways, would endanger the bureaucracy. Everywhere you go, if you find Chinese, they are wealthy, _except_ in China, because of the crushing effect of the bureaucracy. That is changing, as I said, because of the allowance of individual profit motive to finally get into China on a large scale. I think you'll find, once past that, Chinese as individuals are little different from anyone else. Just like Japanese, they have culture and that culture is beautiful once separated from their excessively intrusive state. |
| hkwint Oct 10, 2007 8:23 AM EDT |
Only thing I know about bureaucratic Communism, especially from what happened in the DDR a few hundred miles away: They spied on you, they told your neigbours to spy on you, they told you where to go tomorrow, they decided which work you should do and how you should do your work. They told you freedom was bad for the (economical) countries sake. Any opposition against their leadership was crushed. Question is: Who's they? The communist party in the former DDR, or MS/BSA/RIAA with the current US politicians in their pocket? Now, who's communist? Linux? |
| jdixon Oct 10, 2007 8:44 AM EDT |
> MS/BSA/RIAA The last I knew, you didn't disappear in the middle of the night when you opposed MS/BSA/RIAA. You might be bankrupted in court, but that's not quite the same thing. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 10, 2007 8:55 AM EDT |
> The last I knew, you didn't disappear in the middle of the night when you opposed MS/BSA/RIAA. Agreed. One still has to offend the Party directly in America before they will send you to Guantanamo. > They spied on you, they told your neigbours to spy on you,... It is very difficult for people in supposed "free" countries to understand the effects of all-pervading _fear_. Why turn in your neighbors for counter-revolutionary beliefs? Because if you don't, they will turn _you_ in. Fear is tried, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "they hate us for our freedom", etc. It even works, for a time. But fear is a terrible drain, and people tend to look around and see that there is nothing to fear. It takes fear of your neighbors (like gun control and the war on some drugs) to make that fear close by and constant, and thereby perpetual. The DEA and BSA, and I assume the RIAA and MPAA all have 800 numbers so you can turn in your neighbors. One reason alcohol prohibition failed in the US is that the fear of the rum runners never really took hold. Al Capone was a _hero_ to Chicago residents. |
| NoDough Oct 10, 2007 6:16 PM EDT |
I call TOS on Bob! |
| azerthoth Oct 10, 2007 11:59 PM EDT |
I dont agree NoDough, the conversation was headed this way from the very first post. When you start with Marxism you have entered by default the political arena. When you think about it, Bob's opinions are corollary of what we discuss here on a regular basis. There is no reason what so ever to say that software freedom should be approached any differently than any other freedom, and there is a direct connection between arguing software freedom and freedom in general. The oppressiveness of government philosophies are 100% evident in M$'s approach to Open Source and Free Software. |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 1:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:The last I knew, you didn't disappear in the middle of the night when you opposed MS/BSA/RIAA. Not in your country (you lucky b*st*rd!). Things are entirely different in countries like Ecuador, Turkey etc, where people do go to jail for assumed 'piracy'. If you don't remember, read the second part of the article here: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38606/index.html Here's a quote from someone in Malaysia: Quoting:they put up whole page advertisements in the local papers that depictd a man with his hands handcuffed behind him in prison garb. He was hanging his head in shame. The background was dark (in fact black) with threatening slogans. Later, they offered $10,000 (or 20,000, I forget) local currency to people to snitch on others. I'm sure not a few disgruntled employees got rich. Many coughed up rather than go to jail. Here's a quote from someone in the USA: Quoting:I work for a local government who uses pirated MS software such as NT, Exchange, SQL, Office and SMS. I reported this to the BSA along with all the data of how many licenses we actually have and how many we are using, the numbers were staggering. I spent over an hour on the phone with the BSA giving them every single detail they asked for. What was the result of all this you ask? Nothing! Now I'm sure if I would have reported a business or some kid on a cable modem the BSA would have come down on them with a vengance but I guess U.S. government both local and federal dont need to follow the laws they make or enforce. So you see how lucky you are! |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 4:06 AM EDT |
> I call TOS on Bob! I think... hmm...yeah! There it is, I did mention the BSA once in there. Doesn't that count? A college professor in Japan was hauled off under their copyright laws while I was living there, for writing a variation on peer-to-peer that was really anonymous. They called it "Enabling the Commission of a Crime." |
| NoDough Oct 11, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think... hmm...yeah! There it is, I did mention the BSA once in there. Doesn't that count?Yup, that's it. How dare you bring up the Boy Scouts of America! :) In reality, I was referring more to these... Quoting:One still has to offend the Party directly in America before they will send you to Guantanamo. ... Fear is tried, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "they hate us for our freedom", etc.This type of statement is overt, political opinion and has been back and forth more often than ping-pong ball. The tired and untrue calls of the mass media (if you repeat it often enough...) got old years ago, and I, admittedly, am particularly sick and tired of the constant regurgitating of political opinion without fact. Not that you are alone in this. Your post just happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Please, if we _MUST_ talk politics (which is against the TOS,) then let's at least restrict our comments to fact instead of trying to jam our opinions down everyone's throat. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 9:55 AM EDT |
> at least restrict our comments to fact... Are you trying to say "Fear is tried, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "they hate us for our freedom", etc." isn't factual? |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 10:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Please, if we _MUST_ talk politics (which is against the TOS,) then let's at least restrict our comments to fact instead of trying to jam our opinions down everyone's throat. Tell that to your president next time he makes comments about weapons of mass destruction, not to us! |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 10:16 AM EDT |
>Tell that to your president next time he makes commenns about weapons of mass destruction, not to us! We'll get around to that when Europeans admit to throwing Americans under the bus for years when it comes to terrorists. |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 10:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:throwing Americans under the bus for years when it comes to terrorists. You mean the same way the Americans treat busses? http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt04.html |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 11:09 AM EDT |
Pretty much the same, but less hypocritical. Which reminds me... I've been meaning to call Theo Van Gogh to get the lowdown on how much better you guys handle such things than we do. |
| NoDough Oct 11, 2007 11:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:Are you trying to say "Fear is tried, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "they hate us for our freedom", etc." isn't factual?Exactly. |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 11:17 AM EDT |
Hehe, that will be a problem. But if you don't mind, I stop discussing politics from now on in this thread, I'm sorry for any remarks I made which were out of place. |
| NoDough Oct 11, 2007 11:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:Tell that to your president next time he makes comments about weapons of mass destruction, not to us!You're having wayyyy too much fun with this. And yes, you hit on exactly what has been brought up in a blatant violation of the TOS. |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 11:21 AM EDT |
>I'm sorry for any remarks I made which were out of place. Well, then, ditto. Although, one doesn't get many invitations for conscience-free inflammatory remarks. Oh well. Back to civility -- or as close as I ever get to it. Ya know, that's the problem with this forum. Even the jerks are only momentary jerks, not deep down pinheads. Clearly a lack of sufficient partying has left too many brain cells intact. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 11:22 AM EDT |
From the article: "Allied aircraft strafed and bombed a stretch of the Jahra Highway. A large convoy of Iraqis were trying to make a haste retreat back to Baghdad, as the Allied Forces retook Kuwait City. Many Iraqis were killed on this highway." It sounds like that would be the highway from Kuwait to Iraq. Which means those were retreating soldiers, not Iraqi civilians. |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
>It sounds like that would be the highway from Kuwait to Iraq. Which means those were retreating soldiers, not Iraqi civilians. Yes it was, but facts, even when called into play, participate in a Patty Hearst kind of way when the exchange is Nyahh-Nyahh! |
| hkwint Oct 11, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
Yes, I agree I violated TOS, and I'm sorry. But state-approved violence makes me angry, and it's sure something different from one muslim murdering a film maker or terrorists bombings which are not approved by 'our' governments, which Dino tries to soud like the same (or do you think Brittish government ordered those metro-bombings?). But enough for me now, I guess I can better stop reacting in this thread. |
| dinotrac Oct 11, 2007 11:31 AM EDT |
> But state-approved violence makes me angry Here's an idea - if you really have a problem with that, you should take some time off to scream at cops, the world's top perpetrators of state-approved violence. For that matter, maybe you can find a surviving member of the Eindhoven Resistance to give a good tongue-lashing. Oh, come on guys!!! That was a whole lot more civil than my earlier posts...and similar (ok, maybe a tad exaggerated) to Hans's last post. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 12:02 PM EDT |
> Exactly. Wow. Ok, but several million people heard and saw it said, it's been quoted in newspapers, magazines and television, and reposted to things like YouTube many times. Those exact phrases. |
| NoDough Oct 11, 2007 12:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:Wow. Ok, but several million people heard and saw it said, it's been quoted in newspapers, magazines and television, and reposted to things like YouTube many times. Those exact phrases.OK, off we go into TOS-violation land. And which of those are you saying establishes as fact that Iraq had no WMDs and anyone who said otherwise was lying? (By the way, that would have been about 95% of the governments in the world, not to mention the entire US Senate and House; Democrat, Republican, and other.) Which of those establishes as fact that they don't hate us for our freedom when in fact they openly admit to hating democracy? Blindly echoing what has "been quoted in newspapers, magazines and television, and reposted to things like YouTube many times" does not establish anything except that if you repeat it often enough... |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 1:02 PM EDT |
> and anyone who said otherwise was lying? NoDough, the fact that someone says something in an effort to spread fear does not necessarily mean they are lying when they do so. :) > Which of those establishes as fact that they don't hate us for our freedom when in fact they openly admit to hating democracy? Freedom != Democracy, so that does not follow. Warning: Rampant opinion follows. And to be precise, the radical Islam folks hate us because we're infidels. Even worse, we're infidels who refuse to recognize the supremacy of Islam. Infidels who know their place are only looked down upon, not hated. End rampant opinion. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 11, 2007 1:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:OK, off we go into TOS-violation land. Which means that you should end it right there and then. I'm not picking on you specifically here, but you just happened to provide a nice bit to quote for me. Please keep the TOS in mind people. There is some occasional leeway here and there but those are exceptions. Perhaps one of you should start an lxer-users-politics mailinglist somewhere :-) |
| NoDough Oct 11, 2007 2:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:NoDough, the fact that someone says something in an effort to spread fear does not necessarily mean they are lying when they do so. :)When you speak the truth, you are not creating FUD. (Which is, I believe, the type of fear being discussed here.) If I tell you there is a stranger with a gun waiting for you in your house, and it's a lie, then I am just creating fear. OTOH, if it's true I'm doing you a service and my motives have nothing to do with creating fear (although, that may be a healthy side effect.) I think (hope) I made that point without a TOS-violation. Quoting:Which means that you should end it right there and then.Thank you. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 11, 2007 3:10 PM EDT |
> And which of those are you saying establishes as fact that Iraq had no WMDs and anyone who said otherwise was lying? None. I never said anything on that distinction. The phrases were, however said in order to instill a sense of dread, fear, in order to motivate a certain reaction. Just like marching someone away in cuffs for copying software. The individual is almost certainly non violent, and the accused crime is non violent, but the pictures are used to instill a sense of dread. Fear, that if caught, the same thing is going to happen to me. Extremes of enforcement are no less abuse of copyright/patent than are extremes of duration or extremes of application. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 3:52 PM EDT |
> OTOH, if it's true I'm doing you a service and my motives have nothing to do with creating fear That does not follow, NoDough. While it's true that in general someone who warns you that there is an armed stranger in your house has no ulterior motive, you are presuming from the general case to a specific case, and it's not safe to do that. In any specific case, you could have any number of reasons for warning me, and not all of them are necessarily for my benefit. |
| NoDough Oct 11, 2007 6:07 PM EDT |
Bob and JD, This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone else (otherwise, you wouldn't use it as an example,) and I'm sure you didn't. Therefore, we'll never agree. I think we should take Sander's advice. |
| jdixon Oct 11, 2007 6:46 PM EDT |
> This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone else... I'm not sure of anything of the kind. I'm only chiming in because your arguments so far haven't been valid. A simple, "I don't think that the administration or its supporters were trying to spread fear with their statements, but rather to inform the public of the true state of affairs", may be what you were aiming for, though I'm not certain. |
| gus3 Oct 12, 2007 12:54 AM EDT |
(Before we start tonight's show, please note that the part of Ayn Rand will be played by NoDough, and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.) |
| jdixon Oct 12, 2007 3:18 AM EDT |
> ...and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon. Ouch, that hurts. That's hitting below the belt, gus3. :) |
| hkwint Oct 12, 2007 4:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:> But state-approved violence makes me angry Well, I would like to correct that, I meant state-approved violence against innocent people. Cops are not meant to harm innocent people if I recall correctly(?) Anyway, back to the topic of Marxism and Libertians sometimes going hand in hand; I know of some kind of 'think tank' that first was Marxist, but than eventually turned Libertarian. Can you imagine? I can't remember the name, but it had to do with those people saying the Greenhouse-effect is nonsense. To be honest, I don't trust a group of people that turns from Marxist to Libertarian, but I might be wrong; are there much similarities between the two? |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 12, 2007 4:50 AM EDT |
> This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone else No. > (Before we start tonight's show, please note that the part of Ayn Rand will be played by NoDough, and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.) Awww, can I be "bomb-throwing anarchist, third from the left, in scene 4"? |
| NoDough Oct 12, 2007 8:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:> This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone elseI'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you forgot what you said. Quoting:Fear is tried, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "they hate us for our freedom", etc.Now, you can spin as much as want. But that sentence is accusing someone of fear mongering. |
| NoDough Oct 12, 2007 8:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:(Before we start tonight's show, please note that the part of Ayn Rand will be played by NoDough, and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.)Dang! Stuck playing the girl. |
| NoDough Oct 12, 2007 8:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:A simple, "I don't think that the administration or its supporters were trying to spread fear with their statements, but rather to inform the public of the true state of affairs", may be what you were aiming for, though I'm not certain.I never said that. What I am saying is that Bob directly accused them of fear mongering when he has no idea what their true motives were and nothing factual to back up his opinion. I get tired of the drive-by TOS violations. "Oh, look! I sniped a TOS violation. I'll never have to provide any evidence of what I am saying and no one can argue with me because that would be a TOS violation." How about just keeping it to yourself in the first place. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 12, 2007 8:31 AM EDT |
> Now, you can spin as much as want. But that sentence is accusing someone of fear mongering. No question it was fear mongering. I just don't know their motivations in doing so. You may not like what you think my position is on the "facts" presented, but your dislike or not is irrelevant. The "facts" presented are irrelevant. They were presented in a manner and method specifically to induce fear. |
| NoDough Oct 12, 2007 9:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:No question it was fear mongering. I just don't know their motivations in doing so.And this is where I realize that I am not speaking to a rational human being. So, I just drop it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!