
Ernesto 'Che' Guevara · Board rules |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (2) [1] 2 ( Go to first unread post ) | ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Ixabert |
Posted: Nov 6 2004, 04:06 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Banned Group: Members Posts: 1,236 Member No.: 12 Joined: 5-March 04 ![]() |
I don't think 'communism is what is taught in school'. Far from it. Read some of my threads on the subject.
Even though Hitler had a couple of good policies, this does not change my overall detestation of him. However, I think it an error to think any man "pure evil", or to think, just because he did something highly objectionable, that he therefore is incapable of doing anything good - I don't care if it is George Bush himself. Out of all the bad Hitler had done, in my opinion he did do some good things, which by no means however outweigh the bad. I do not include the killing of anyone on the list of 'good things'. Eugenics was good. Mass murder was not. And thanks to Hitler's blood-thirstiness, eugenics has forever been associated with mass murder, when no such association should be made. It was his racialism and national chauvinism which led to mass murder, not his policy of eugenics. Encouraging healthy people to have more children, and discouraging people with diseases which they could pass on to their children, is a form of eugenics, and this is the form of eugenics I support. It doesn't involve killing. And Hitler practised this form of eugenics without killing. The killings were something else he did, apart from his policy of eugenics. As for my not being a communist, that is a baseless, unfounded assumption, and I don't take anyone seriously who has the gall to make such an assumption. -------------------- ![]() [Korean Central News Agency] [The People's Korea] [The Pyongyang Times] [Korea Today] [Naenara] [The Korean Friendship Association] [The Australian Association for the Study of Kim Jong Il's Works] "Americans are worlds behind in all theoretical things, and while they did not bring over any medieval institutions from Europe they did bring over masses of medieval traditions, English common (feudal) law, superstition, spiritualism, in short every kind of imbecility which was not directly harmful to business and which is now very serviceable for making the masses stupid." Letter from Engels to Friedrich Albert Sorge, 29 Nov. 1886 |
Marxism-Leninism |
Posted: Nov 6 2004, 04:12 PM
|
||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Revolutionary Group: Members Posts: 915 Member No.: 287 Joined: 29-October 04 ![]() |
And why should we encourage "healthy people" to have children? You sound like those filthy nazis who "encouraged" arian men and women to have children, you are a disgrace to communism! you ignored me here
This post has been edited by Marxism-Leninism on Nov 8 2004, 04:11 PM -------------------- True communism is Marxism-Leninism! www.marxist-leninist.com
Communist Party Alliance "It should be explained to our Party comrades that the economic successes. The significance of which is undoubtedly very great and which we shall also strive for in the future, day after day, year after year, are nevertheless not the whole of our socialist construction. It should be explained that the seamy sides connected with economic successes and expressed in self-satisfaction, in carelessness, in the deadening of political intuition, can be liquidated only if economic successes are combined with the successes of Party construction and the developed political work of our Party." Stalin |
||||||
1949 |
Posted: Nov 6 2004, 08:34 PM
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Group: Members Posts: 1,822 Member No.: 172 Joined: 14-June 04 ![]() |
Comrade RAF on eugenics:
http://elijahcraig.proboards2.com/index.cg...&num=1064288773 Perhaps not the type of eugenics that Ixabert is talking about, but still, discussion on the merits and flaws of eugenics should not be suppressed. |
||
Ixabert |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 01:14 AM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Banned Group: Members Posts: 1,236 Member No.: 12 Joined: 5-March 04 ![]() |
I pretty much agree with Comrade RAF.
-------------------- ![]() [Korean Central News Agency] [The People's Korea] [The Pyongyang Times] [Korea Today] [Naenara] [The Korean Friendship Association] [The Australian Association for the Study of Kim Jong Il's Works] "Americans are worlds behind in all theoretical things, and while they did not bring over any medieval institutions from Europe they did bring over masses of medieval traditions, English common (feudal) law, superstition, spiritualism, in short every kind of imbecility which was not directly harmful to business and which is now very serviceable for making the masses stupid." Letter from Engels to Friedrich Albert Sorge, 29 Nov. 1886 |
Fernando Gonzales |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 01:59 AM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() "Oil is the engine of freedom" - Stupid American Group: Members Posts: 415 Member No.: 268 Joined: 18-October 04 ![]() |
Ixabert, if you are a communist, why do you call yourself a "social-nationalist"?
"I do not include the killing of anyone on the list of 'good things'." In another board, I believe you said something along the lines of: "The only problem with Hitler was that he didn't kill all the jews" Although I do understand what you say Ixabert, regarding eugenics: To flirt with these things, and to imply them into your political programme is very dangerious, and I do not have the word to describe my second feeling, but it could be best described as "disgust". The population could easily be turned into one believing in "racial purity", which is not a good thing, even less so in a communist, or even a socialist society. If you want to focus on racial eugenics in any other way than RAF talked about, please do, but please don't call yourself a communist, because you are giving us a bad reputation by doing so. To me, and I am saying this as objectively as possible, it seems like you are more curious about sexual preferences, genders and races. Nothing wrong with that, but maybe it's time to say goodbye to the good 'ol folks, like Marx, Lenin and Castro? This post has been edited by Vladmir viznyuk on Nov 7 2004, 02:09 AM -------------------- "The most Marxist thing would be not to give to charity." - Iron Feliks
You're an idiot! - "Anarchist Tension", being as constructive as usual DEMOCRACY: "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression. Results of mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy." - U.S. War Department Training Manual 1928 |
1949 |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 03:13 AM
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Group: Members Posts: 1,822 Member No.: 172 Joined: 14-June 04 ![]() |
Does that include the part about Fascist and Nazi eugenics being a "Shit-science"? |
||
Disco Stu |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 05:11 AM
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Captain Articulation Group: Members Posts: 1,038 Member No.: 145 Joined: 7-May 04 ![]() |
Ixabert you are being incredibly illogical here. If you look at people only from the perspective of "who is healthy and strong, and who has physical disablities" then Steven Hawking would not have been born (I know he wasn't born with the disease, but you get the idea). This is an incredibly closed-minded and stupid way of looking at humans, because it completely ignores the complex and nuanced differences between people that makes them better in some areas than others. People are not some species of cow to be made better over time. I am skinny and not very strong, I have allergies, and I have a birth defect that prevents me from fully utilizing my lungs (it's not as bad as it sounds). I should not reproduce. However throughout school I've had extremely high grades and excelled in standardized tests. My thinking ability far exceeds my physical. However you in your system ignore these facts. And how are you going to determine who is worthy of reproduction and who is not? How are you to determine which attributes are "desirable" and which are not? Van Gogh had a rare form of brain disease that helped him see the world the way he did, Bach was deaf, Freud had an addictive personality that led to cocaine addiction. The very BEST artists, musicians, and geniuses quite commonly have some kind of physical problem or defect, and by using or overcoming this defect they become strong, yet you would stop them from reproducing. What little respect I had for you is gone. No logical or sane person can support eugenics. It is a two-dimensional view of looking at people. It ignores that diversity is exactly what makes people amazing. |
||
Ixabert |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 07:25 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Banned Group: Members Posts: 1,236 Member No.: 12 Joined: 5-March 04 ![]() |
Because I am a nationalistic socialist.
No,
never said that, and the administrator knew I never said that, and had
a "talk" with the person who fabricated that quotation. If I had
actually said that, I would have been banned immediately, without
question.
Flirt? You say later in this diatribe that you are speaking objectively, yet you use all these silly pejoratives.
Please elaborate!
I am indifferent to your 'feelings'.
Baseless conjecture.
"Good" is subjective. How do you define "good" in this context?
Where did I advocate racial eugenics? Nowhere.
Your ignorance is giving us a bad reputation.
That is a lie.
More curious? With respect to what? Please elaborate!
Ah! I see! So anyone concerned with science must say goodbye to Marx, Lenin, and Castro. And you say I
am giving us a bad reputation. You are the one perpetuating the lie of
anti-Marxists that Marxism is a pseudo-science which rejects all the
scientific progress made in the last 100 years.
I
am of the belief that Steven Hawking's brilliance is the product
primarily of education. Your argument is reminiscent of the one used by
some anti-abortionists, who opine that abortion should be illegal, by
reason of the possibility, that the foetus, should it be aborted, would
have grown up to be the next Newton. In fact, if eugenics, without
being poisoned with pseudo-scientific racial theories, were practised
for an extensive period of time, the average intelligence would go up
considerably, and we would have many more men like Mr. Hawkings.
Besides, if everyone received a proper education, never mind eugenics,
we would have thousands of Hawkings, easily.
In the long run, there would be more Steven Hawkings, assuming there is a genetic component in intelligence
Wrong. It is based
on these differences. This is what eugenics is all about. The
proliferation of those with desirable specific differences at the
expense of the scum at the bottom. It is about taking into account the differences which exist within the human species and cultivating the stronger at the expense of the weaker.
The laws of inheritance apply just as strictly to humans as they do to cows. Man is not an exception to the general laws of inheritance of all organic nature. Why should we focus our energies on breeding and improving cows when we have the technology available to uplift our own species to ever higher and higher levels?
You are assuming that all eugenics programmes would prevent the proliferation of all people with any genetic infirmity no matter how trivial. This is both ridiculous and ahistorical.
Baseless
assumption. You are totally ignorant of the eugenics programme I have
in mind, yet you assume that it would be eugenics in the most extreme,
a eugenics programme which has not been practised in any form remotely
similar in the long history of eugenics practises. You are assuming,
again, that it would necessarily prevent the proliferation of all
people with any genetic infirmity whatsoever. Finally, I think the
general population is already decided on what traits are desirable and
undesirable. And your "who decides this and that" argument which you so
often resort to, is purely rhetorical.
No, artificial selection is actually based on this diversity, depends
on it, in the same way that natural selection does. Any dog breeder
will tell you the same thing. Eugenics are merely breeding techniques
applied to mankind. Now, the problem is that we breed our animals with
a lot of care whilst neglecting our own human race. Why is this? Is it
not a sign of neglect? Or stupidity? Why, I ask, ought we to we focus
our energies on breeding and improving dogs when we have the technology available to uplift our own
species to ever higher and higher levels? I say it is because we in the
West have inherited a fundamental distinction between mankind and other
species of animals from Christianity. We regard "humanity" (as a unit)
as being somehow above other creatures, and so we privilege human life
above all other forms of life. What is more, we attach a more positive
evaluation on the now-living above the departed and the yet-to-live, as
if they were less human than we are. The injurious results of this sort
of mentality are abundantly manfiest: the extermination of the unborn
by the millions for material pleasures, the obliteration of the Earth's
ecosystem for profit, the exploitation and waste of the Earth's natural
resources by the present generation at the expense of the next
generation, the ruination of our public education system in the name of
'morality', and so on. We must recognise that there is nothing sacred
about human life; neither are all mankind equal, even though
Christianity asserts the contrary. Mankind are not interchangable
units. Some humans are both more intelligent, productive, and beautiful
than other humans; and although these human beings are not as numerous
as we should like them to be, nevertheless they are more important in
that they display our highest possibilities; and this is why we should support eugenics. For eugenics takes into account
the differences, the diversity, which exist within humanity and
cultivates the stronger at the expense of the weaker. A progressive
social policy must aim at raising humanity up to ever newer heights -
not only socially and politically and technologically, but also
biologically.
-------------------- ![]() [Korean Central News Agency] [The People's Korea] [The Pyongyang Times] [Korea Today] [Naenara] [The Korean Friendship Association] [The Australian Association for the Study of Kim Jong Il's Works] "Americans are worlds behind in all theoretical things, and while they did not bring over any medieval institutions from Europe they did bring over masses of medieval traditions, English common (feudal) law, superstition, spiritualism, in short every kind of imbecility which was not directly harmful to business and which is now very serviceable for making the masses stupid." Letter from Engels to Friedrich Albert Sorge, 29 Nov. 1886 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Disco Stu |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 09:36 PM
|
||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Captain Articulation Group: Members Posts: 1,038 Member No.: 145 Joined: 7-May 04 ![]() |
Ixabert your entire argument refers to your "theory of eugenics"
without actually defining your theory, defining which attributes are
desirable, which are not, and by what basis you have come to put these
attributes in certain categories. My argument was based off of an
assumption that you were going on physical attributes alone, and since
it was apparently incorrect, please give a clear and precise defintion
of who you think should breed and who should not. Eugenics based on intelligence also assumes a genetic component of intelligence, as you mentioned, and this link has not yet been proven, mainly because there is no good definition of intelligence because it comes in a variety of forms. Please give a definition so I can argue it. Right now I'm arguing my assumptions.
Because cows have an easily understood and easily attained purpose: to either make lots of milk or make lots of meat. There are two problems to solve and with genetics we have solved them and have improved the cows. The same goes for dogs, or horses, or anything else. They are all bred to solve one particular problem. With humans, there are many, many more problems to solve because humans do not serve a single purpose. Humans can be intelligent, street-smart, strategic, strong physically, strong mentally, strong analytically, strong with spacial reasoning, strong abstract reasoning, etc. The list goes on. The point I'm making is that you cannot count the number of ways that an individual can be strong, and I am also assuming that every human has the potential of being stronger in one area than the majority of the rest of the population. Given this assumption it is illogical to claim that eugenics would work because there are as many problems to solve as there are people so you can't pick one problem and work on it at the expense of the rest.
Stronger by what definition, and weaker by what definition? This the problem with eugenics, because there is no "stronger" or "weaker" in humans. In specific areas yes there are disparities between the "strong" and the "weak," but taking into account a single individual's combinations of strengths and weaknesses would result in everyone being the same. Give a definition of your eugenics program so I can argue it. This post has been edited by Disco Stu on Nov 7 2004, 09:36 PM |
||||
Ixabert |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 11:21 PM
|
||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Banned Group: Members Posts: 1,236 Member No.: 12 Joined: 5-March 04 ![]() |
That
is false. The only part of my argument which refers to my "theory of
eugenics" without defining it is the second to last paragraph. Most of
my argument consists of detailing why a eugenics programme is
desirable, and countering reasons why it is thought undesirable.
I don't have a specific eugenics programme in mind, for reasons I shall detail below.
If
there isn't one, then it wouldn't be necessary. But psychologists no
longer ask whether nature or nurture alone determines intelligence.
They know that both factors are at work. Instead they are trying to
determine the degree to which genetics and the environment play
roles in intelligence. Even supposing that intelligence is determined
primarily by education (which I believe myself), this has no bearing on
whether eugenics (as applied to intelligence) is workable, unless
intelligence is scarcely genetic, which isn't what the evidence shows;
and if that were proved, the amelioration of the general intelligence
of the stock wouldn't be part of the eugenics programme. But until
then, we have sufficient reason to believe it workable.
Laymen do not agree on their definitions of intelligence. Pychologists do not agree among themselves when asked for a formal, verbal
definition. This does not mean that they are not all referring to the
same thing. If we take a given substance, X, and ask a politician, a
garage proprietor, and a houseive to define it, they might say it was
'the cause of present troubles with several middle East countries',
that it was 'the ultimate cause of compulsion of motor cars', or that
it was 'a strain remover'. These definitions are all different, but
they refer to one and the same thing, namely what most of us would call
'petrol'. This diversity of definitions means, however, that we cannot
use any of them as a standard to compare, say, intelligenec tests with,
because such a coice would be arbitrary and contrary to the procedure
of science. We therefore resort to what are known as practical
definitions. A practical definition, as opposed to a verbal one, is one
which sets up agreed upon practical criteria which are universally
deemed to contain the definition, though not on its pure form. As
Thurstone remarked: 'A science of psychology will deal with the activities of people as its central theme. A large class of human activity is that which differentiates individuals as regards their overt accomplishments. Just as it is convenient to postulate physical forces in describing the movements of physical objects, so it is also natural to postulate abilities and their absence as primary causes of the successful completion of a task by some individuals and of the failure of other individuals in the same task.'
Yes,
I agree; the purpose of cows is the realisation of their reality, as
determined by the way in which they are used (in the same way that the
purpose of a cup is determined). The purpose of humans, in like manner,
is the realisation of the goals of their existence as social beings.
This varies from society to society and culture to culture. Eugenics
programmes, therefore, would be different in different cultures,
depending on which traits are most valued in the societies in question,
and on whether those traits be heritable or not and the degree to which
they are so.
At fulfilling specific desired and undesired tasks, the latter being determined by the culture in question.
-------------------- ![]() [Korean Central News Agency] [The People's Korea] [The Pyongyang Times] [Korea Today] [Naenara] [The Korean Friendship Association] [The Australian Association for the Study of Kim Jong Il's Works] "Americans are worlds behind in all theoretical things, and while they did not bring over any medieval institutions from Europe they did bring over masses of medieval traditions, English common (feudal) law, superstition, spiritualism, in short every kind of imbecility which was not directly harmful to business and which is now very serviceable for making the masses stupid." Letter from Engels to Friedrich Albert Sorge, 29 Nov. 1886 |
||||||||||||
1949 |
Posted: Nov 7 2004, 11:55 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Group: Members Posts: 1,822 Member No.: 172 Joined: 14-June 04 ![]() |
Disco Stu, what do you think of the Comrade RAF quote that I posted on
eugenics? Also, what is your take on the Rockefeller Corporation having
funded Nazi eugenics programs, and of Nazi-style eugenics programs
having their origin in California, U.S.A.?
|
Disco Stu |
Posted: Nov 8 2004, 02:39 AM
|
||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Captain Articulation Group: Members Posts: 1,038 Member No.: 145 Joined: 7-May 04 ![]() |
1949, that quote does not really deal with eugenics. It deals with
helping a specific race overcome racial problems that pre-dispose them
to physical problems. I see no problem with using people who have
asthma in asthma tests, it is only logical, and after you make a
medicine for it then the problem is solved. This is not at issue here.
Ixabert's eugenics (or at least what I think it is, because he doesn't
have his own program), would have people with asthma stop breeding
because there is a chance (assuming asthma is genetic) that they would
pass it on. In short, using traditional eugenics, there would be no
need for scientists to study the africans with sickle cell anemia, it
would only be necessary to prevent those with the disease to stop
breeding and try to prevent those susceptible to the disease to stop
breeding.
I know nothing about either of these programs, but since I'm against eugenics in general, I would probably be against those programs as well.
True.
True. If genetics play no role in preventing or cultivating a skill or detriment, then of course it makes no sense to prevent breeding of people with that skill or detriment.
They may be referring to the same thing but the individual thing is still itself not defined. It doesn't matter how many opinions people have on the subject. There are no known tests that truly measure all aspects of intelligence because there are infinite ways a person can be intelligent.
Thurston is exactly right. You are not carrying his definition far enough. He speaks of differentiating people by accomplishments then postulating reasons for those accomplishments, while I argue that every single action of every single individual reveals something strong or weak about them. You can't scientifically come up with a way to determine that someone is more worthy of reproduction than another, because while Steven Hawkig can't run a 4.4 second 40-yard dash he can calculate the beginning of time (I think). The point is that there are infinitely many ways in which people are intelligent or more skilled than the majority of the population, and it is therefore silly to try and determine who is more skilled, because you can only look at one attribute at a time when there are hundreds of attributes per person.
Of course its based on fulfilling and not fulfilling tasks. The question is which tasks and why those tasks are chosen, and how many task tests are applied to each person. It is stupid to base the tasks off of "cultural norms" (which are essentially popular opinion) because people as a whole do not always know what is best. For example if you based eugenics off of popular opinion in the 30's in America and enforced it we would be a nation filled with domestic-oriented women. Eugenics would work if we knew every strength and every weakness of every individual. It is impossible to know this. |
||||||||||||
1949 |
Posted: Nov 8 2004, 02:59 AM
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Group: Members Posts: 1,822 Member No.: 172 Joined: 14-June 04 ![]() |
Okay. I just thought that since you seem to have such a love affair with capitalism and the U.S. government, you would be fond of Rockefeller, so I thought I should remind you of some of the atrocious things his company did, helping Nazis and all. The Nazi and California eugenics programs were racist programs aimed at minorities and stuff. ROFL By the way, I see what you're saying about Ixabert being sort of vague. |
||
Che y Marijuana |
Posted: Nov 8 2004, 09:50 AM
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Global Marxism, logical answer to reactionary Nationalists Group: Members Posts: 818 Member No.: 159 Joined: 28-May 04 ![]() |
This my friend, is the very basis of Fascism. The strong should be allowed to arise, and the weak suppressed. There is nothing wrong with using genetic engineering in a Communist society to attempt to improve humanity by eliminating genetic diseases, etc... But this idea, this Uberman, is idiotic. Your approach is dangerous and far too Nietchzian. |
||
UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics |
Posted: Nov 8 2004, 11:47 AM
|
||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() To French doctors: pull the plug on CyM! Group: Moderators Posts: 1,248 Member No.: 74 Joined: 25-March 04 ![]() |
This indeed is a very very right wing view point, I strongly disagree. --------------------
|
||||
Disco Stu |
Posted: Nov 8 2004, 05:27 PM
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Captain Articulation Group: Members Posts: 1,038 Member No.: 145 Joined: 7-May 04 ![]() |
Do you have info I can read about it? However if they are what I think they were then I am probably against both. There are many things I disagree with in regards to my government and my economic system. I just don't think there is a better, workable alternative. |
||
1949 |
Posted: Nov 10 2004, 01:39 AM
|
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Group: Members Posts: 1,822 Member No.: 172 Joined: 14-June 04 ![]() |
My history teacher cited an article from the San Francisco Chronicle as a source, but I doubt you can get that, being in Georgia as I believe you are. The only other source I've ever seen is a book I saw in a store: War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. I haven't read it, though. This is sort of off-topic, though. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. |
||
Refuse_Resist |
Posted: Nov 12 2004, 01:12 AM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() Stakhanovite Group: Members Posts: 86 Member No.: 293 Joined: 1-November 04 ![]() |
Eugenics that are done to try and make people into "perfect" humans is
just plain stupid and is, well, what Nazism is all about. Saying that
someone is somehow inferior because of their physical features or with
any kind of disability they're born with is exactly what Hitler
believed in. These are typical reactionary views that eventually lead
to genocide.
-------------------- "In bourgeois society capital is independent and
has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no
individuality." - Karl Marx
"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State. " - V. I. Lenin "Mankind is divided into rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division ;and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from fundamental facts." - Josef Stalin "If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience." - Mao Tse-tung "Why does the guerrilla fighter fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy and misery." - Ernesto "Che" Guevara |
Disco Stu |
Posted: Nov 12 2004, 08:50 AM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Captain Articulation Group: Members Posts: 1,038 Member No.: 145 Joined: 7-May 04 ![]() |
As I've said in this thread, there are too many factors to include to
possibly determine who is "inferior" and who is desirable.
|
Mazdak |
Posted: Feb 1 2005, 10:03 PM
|
![]() ![]() ![]() Stakhanovite Group: Members Posts: 178 Member No.: 4 Joined: 3-March 04 ![]() |
Not true. There is always a line that can be drawn between the needed and the absurd.
-------------------- Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois
selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of
the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political
and organizational liberalism. - Mao
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() |