Wars are only one facet among the many of civlizations. What civilization has no agriculture, religion, commerce or medicine? What civilization has no art and storytelling? Civilizations have war, but they don't all totally revolve around war. Agriculture and building is a more important facet of civilization than war. You don't need to be civilized to grab clubs and go beat on people.. you do need to be civilized to farm and build though.

FuckOff: Reality, proof, and statistics don't matter. The only thing that matters is the strict worldview and philosophy that blames women and black people for everything wrong in our society... which must be maintained at all costs, regardless of any contrary evidence or common sense

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 06-13-2002).]

Spirit has never backed up any point he's made with a study or even logic. Just like all the nazis and fascists, he justifies his points by claiming he's a supreme being that's organically right about everything. Nazis considered themselves on such a high sociological plateau that they didn't need to back themselves up. They were "above all that."

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 06-13-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Spirit has never backed up any point he's made with a study or even logic. Just like all the nazis and fascists, he justifies his points by claiming he's a supreme being that's organically right about everything. Nazis considered themselves on such a high sociological plateau that they didn't need to back themselves up. They were "above all that."

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 06-13-2002).]

---

Also don't forget the communists Nasty

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Agriculture and building is a more important facet of civilization than war.

---

That's true, and war is the tool that civilization uses to ensure that it can do business.

Is war not a requirement for the socialists' goals to be met? You don't think that they're just going to hand you the keys to the factories do you?

Marxists, and dialectical materialists in general, use science to back up their ideas. They use economics, study and access cycles, and fully analyse the market.

Revolution is different then war. A class fighting a class isn't a nation fighting a nation. Revolution isn't for economic gains, or gains in natural recources. It isn't for any kind of material gain. No land is conquered, no peoples are enslaved. A revolution is an act of systematic aggression, which isn't neccesarily war.

>>>Wars are only one facet among the many of civlizations. What civilization has no agriculture, religion, commerce<<<<

Those are all masculine things...What the hell is more obviously masculine than treading over soft ground, sticking a pole in it to plant a seed, than working to harvest it?

>>>>What civilization has no art and storytelling?<<<<

What do you think the art and storytelling deal with? Ive yet to hear of a folk tale that represents a culture that is a rousing story of child-rearing.

>>>>Civilizations have war, but they don't all totally revolve around war.<<<<

Pretty much. Just about every invention was either invented for war, or, was stolen before it could be used for anything other than war. Even bridges and shoes had martial purposes.

>>>>Agriculture and building is a more important facet of civilization than war.<<<<

Neither of which has a very feminine character to it.

>>>>Reality, proof, and statistics don't matter. The only thing that matters is the strict worldview and philosophy that blames women and black people for everything wrong in our society...<<<<

I dont blame women for being women...And I dont blame blacks for shit, that credits them with a contribution to something. Everything blacks have historically done was initiated, and usually, followed through, by others on their behalf.


>>>Spirit has never backed up any point he's made with a study or even logic.<<<

So its illogical when I say women act like women?

>>>>Just like all the nazis and fascists, he justifies his points by claiming he's a supreme being that's organically right about everything.<<<<

...Ive never said Im a supreme anything. I said nature is always right though, silly me.

>>>>Nazis considered themselves on such a high sociological plateau that they didn't need to back themselves up. They were "above all that."<<<<

Who are you quoting?


>>>Marxists, and dialectical materialists in general, use science to back up their ideas.<<<<

Are you denying the science behind biology, anthropology, and history?

>>>>They use economics, study and access cycles, and fully analyse the market.<<<<

So theyre stockbrokers...

>>>>Revolution is different then war.<<<<

Tell that to Chechnya. You sound like a typical snot-nosed virgin asshole.

>>>>Revolution isn't for economic gains, or gains in natural recources. It isn't for any kind of material gain.<<<<

That sorta contradicts the entire fundamental point of Marxist thinking, doesnt it?

>>>>> No land is conquered, no peoples are enslaved. <<<<

LOL, what the fuck revolution are you talking about?

The revolution of getting attention.

That whole "feminine" character and "masculine" character crap is a bullshit justification for not allowing people to do something because they have certain biological organs, Spirit. There is no such thing as a fully masculine male and a fully feminine female. Everyone and everything has components of both yin and yang. It's called being human. There are "masculine" women and "feminine" men. Most people fall somewhere in between. To force everyone into a little box of what they are allowed and restricted to do based on gender is a disgusting form of tyranny. There is no freedom in that. For some oh so strange reason, it seems like it's always the female that must have heavily restricted actions while men get a wide range of freedom to do what they want. No thanks.

Damn.. to think that people like you were what the women struggling for rights in the past had to deal with. I could see you back then arguing that "the female mind is too fragile to be educated".

>>>>>There is no such thing as a fully masculine male and a fully feminine female.<<<<

Did I say civilization was a totally masculine male? I said it has a masculine spirit. There is a masculine spirit.

>>> I could see you back then arguing that "the female mind is too fragile to be educated".<<<<

I could likewise see you arguing, "The male penis is too invasive to be welcomed."

Well, no shit it has "a" masculine spirit. It has men in it. It also has women in it. I don't see how civilization having "a" masculine spirit has anything to do with not allowing women the rights to do many things.

quote:

---

I could likewise see you arguing, "The male penis is too invasive to be welcomed."

---

Hogwash. I love men as individuals. I just don't think they should have priviledges over women or are superior. I very much "welcome" the "invasion" of the male penis. I do not welcome the invasion of tyrannic little men trying to dictate what over fifty percent of the population should and shouldn't be doing and calling it "freedom".

>>>>Well, no shit it has "a" masculine spirit. It has men in it. It also has women in it. I don't see how civilization having "a" masculine spirit has anything to do with not allowing women the rights to do many things.<<<<

Ironically enough, women arent very good at being manly.

Many women are better at it than many men. Should those men not be allowed to vote while the more masculine women are allowed? Would you force "masculinity" tests on everyone who wants to vote on any issue? Perhaps check to see if they have the proper testosterone levels first?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Perhaps check to see if they have the proper testosterone levels first?

---

Just a simple heft of the sac will suffice.

That's what will save civilization for sure. Men sitting around hefting each others sacs at the voting booth.

Actually, we let the ladies check in voters in my township. I thought my 'I can't relate' comment would inform you that my sac knows only one man's hands.

I get it. The role of women is to grope the sacs so that the men can get that "rush of testosterone" needed to figure out who should be the next governor or if one should vote yes or no on Proposition B.

You want my cock, dont you? hahah

Don't be talking to User X that way. How rude.

Just your mind for now, sweetheart... but who knows? ...maybe later.

*winks, and then blows him a slobbery homo kiss*

WOW. If a female is making good points, they want to be a male. If I female isn't, they're "being like women."

Spirit, I feel sorry for any woman you've ever been with.

Id say the same for you, but from your childish conduct and rambling, Id imagine the list is blank.

Not blank. Not exactly extensive, but female "childish Communist sheep who's parents don't love them" are just as common as mails.

I assume your girlfriends believed that they shouldn't have the right to vote, and obeyed their superior males as leaders of society?

My girlfriend believes women should not vote, yes.

Here's the perfect organization for your girlfriend.

http://www.well.com/user/gail/ladies/

Your girlfriend believes that random males she doesn't know are more entitled to a say in their government's leadiership then she is?

LoL, Women against women's rights.

...what makes her less random than everyone else? Thats the dumbest shit Ive ever heard. She really doesnt believe women should vote because as far as I know, she doesnt believe in elections at all.

So, she doesn't believe women or men should vote, correct?

I believe so. Im not really clear on the issue of male suffrage.

Do you believe in elections? If you're a fascist, your views on the government might affect your position on the electoral system.

Perhaps in a homogenous society of like minded individuals who share a similar class and racial background, not here, lol, no fuckin way. The Roman Republic was good. So was the original American one.

Idaho.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Do you believe in elections? If you're a fascist, your views on the government might affect your position on the electoral system.

---

The same if your a Marxist.

Marxists believe in elections. They simply believe that the elections should be regulated by one party in to stop corruption in the electoral system. Rich people buying their way into office isn't real democracy.

LoL, one party should regulate it to end the corruption. LoL And war is peace, right?

One party that honestly represents the people, do the point that if the people were oppressed, the party will dissolve.

You seem to believe that war is peace, since you believe civilization is dependent on it.

yeah joseph stalins regime hardly lasted any time at all, oh wait he ruled Russia with an Iron opressive fist commiting crimes greater than hitlers for nearly twenty years.

Which led to De-Stalinisation. Stalin's technique was to actually convince people that they lead really happy lives. No matter who the KGB took in the middle of the night, if people believe capitalist countries have it ten times worse, they won't complain.

The Soviet Union failed. Joseph Stalin was partially responsable for this failure. If Trotsky had taken over, there is speculation that the Soviet Union's fate would have been different.

Again, Alan, when I defend Marxist-Leninism, I'm not defending the Soviet Union. I'm defending the theories of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, and how they'd work if put into practice justly.

>>>>You seem to believe that war is peace, since you believe civilization is dependent on it.<<<<

That would mean I believe civilization is dependant on peace, which I do not. My thinking goes like this.


Life = good
Life = struggle
struggle = war
war = life = good

Life is a struggle. Therefor war can be neccesary, but if life is a struggle for anything, I believe it's a struggle for peace.

There's a difference between waging a war to achieve justice and end a conflict then waging for for the sake of living in a state of war, in which gain is temprary. I believe the ultimate goal of life is peace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Life is a struggle. I believe the ultimate goal of life is peace.

---

I believe that the ultimate goal of life is life.

Nox

I know you don't defend stalinism however the brutal represive regime is the outcome of any communist state.

war = life = sucks = surrounded by superior enemy forces.

Alan - I've said on so many occasions that the next generation of Marxists need to learn from their mistakes. Fill the gaps, and make sure such a dictatorship can't emerge.

Also, why hasn't Cuba turned into to a totalitarian dictatorship? Don't say it is. The Cubans have a strongly centralized government, but the people elect all representetives in the Politburo from different regions, and they pass bills for Castro to sign.

In Yugoslavia, Communism protected it's people against oppression until Tito died. It only turned oppressive when Communism fell.

Exactly tito died and the sytem collapsed into a repressive regime. On cuba, a system where you can neither speak your mind nor come and go as you please is really the model of freedom.

I disagree Alan. Tito had to be a repressor to keep the lid on that mess. He kept the factions from fighting amongst themselves. I agree that it really went to shit after Tito, but it was no paradise during his time either.