Heh, Raise the Fist

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: *The use of the term homo does not describe homosexual, it describes a person who is anal retentive, annoying, or just plain stupid. These people are hereafter referred to as homos.

What language are you speaking you homo.
Oh I'm not using your definition of 'homo', or the one used by the majority of English speakers either. My use of the term homo describes a person who stays at home making feeble attempts to tell people that an existing word means something totally different.

So ■■■■ you.

Oh, the term '■■■■' means "go and drink some water", not the generally accepted usage by millions of English speakers.

Anyhow I'm going to go outside.

Oh, the term 'outside' doesn't mean what you'll see in any English dictionary. My definition is "watch some television."

[Yorick]

Originally posted by dizzy: Like I said, I don't think our governemtis even near perfect but it is better than any other. So stop trying to twist my words around.

Eh?

No it isn't.

The Swiss government is the best in the world. Even if it takes years to change the status quo.

[ 07-30-2002, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Chewbacca]

Just for the record, I find it odd that those people call themselves anarchists, and yet they belong to an "action network" which seems to me to be an organization. Not very anarchist if you ask me.

The only true anarchist must be an individual, for only an indiviuals actions can stand alone, truely free. Once an individual joins together with others to achieve an end or support an idea, they lose the autonomy of personal responsibility, the hallmark ideal that makes anarchy a possibility, albiet a far-fetched one until everyone can take full responsibility for thier own actions and bring an end to the need for law and goverment.

Besides they advocate violence as well, which is utterly doomed to fail if they are true anarchists, because to take on a state with violence they would need to be organized or they are just lone terrorists.

Well I cant dis em to bad because they support "Food Not Bombs" which feeds many hungry American homeless children. Yes, the great nation of America has a homeless problem. Its a shame that we spend more $$$ on long-range strategic bombers than we do to provide food and shelter for all our citizens.

Originally posted by norompanlasolas: quote: Originally posted by Moni: Neb, I realize that I am not a moderator and can't ask this of you and expect you to obey but I am going to ask anyway. Please stop pushing the envelope with Dizzy. He already said he is not going to dignify anyone's replies to what he had to say with a response. Just leave it at that out of respect for a fellow member of IW OK? It takes an insider to see all the aspects of this country good and bad so until you live here for some time you really can't argue his point with any validity. Not just that, but when people ask to stopped being pushed and someone insists on shoving, it only leads to further arguing that has no resolve and bad feelings where there shouldn't be any. Ask around, most everyone can tell you that I ought to know that well here...and not from being the person doing the shoving...let's just drop any arguments with Dizzy over this one OK?

ok. i dont get it. he posts an opinion and then tells everyone not to bother responding cause he is not going to "dignify anyones answers to what he had to say with a response"???

whats the point of posting in a FORUM if you are not going to want people to reply to you??? i mean, if he really didnt want to discuss this issue, he could just exit the thread and not post. and not write a pretty controversial post (thus highly likely to get responses) and they say... hey, i dont care what you have to say. your answers are crap anyways, so im not even going to bother responding them so i dont give them more credit than they are due... yeah, right, whatever... [/QUOTE]Whats the point of attacking another's opinions with implied translations of what they meant?

[ 07-30-2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Moni ]

Originally posted by Epona: quote: Originally posted by Moni: It takes an insider to see all the aspects of this country good and bad so until you live here for some time you really can't argue his point with any validity.

In which case, how could anyone claim that your govt is better than anywhere else unless they have lived everywhere else because as you said, it takes an insider to know...[/QUOTE]As far as I know IW members are still entitled to their individual opinions and deserve the respect of having others take them at face value rather than implying this or that meaning out of it.
It does take an insider to know which is why I told Neb he really couldn't argue Dizzy opinion with any validity...had the situation been reversed, I would have stood up for Neb! Like I said, it all just leads to further arguing that has no resolve. I think my point has been made.

[Epona]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Just for the record, I find it odd that those people call themselves anarchists, and yet they belong to an "action network" which seems to me to be an organization. Not very anarchist if you ask me.

I disagree, surely anarchists are people who wish to acheive a state of anarchy in the future. They do not currently live in anarchy at the moment though, just that they wish to do so. The purpose of organisation is to effectively agitate to achieve anarchy - ie. a means to an end, not the end in itself. In the same way that a socialist does not currently live in socialism, so cannot necessarily live their life as if they were in a socialist society, but they work within the current system to achieve it.

BTW (this bit not aimed at you Chewbacca!), reason I got cross earlier is cos my bf is an anarchist - and he is NOT some f*cked up teenager as previous posters suggested anarchists were. Insult my friends and you insult me also. Hence my outburst. This is not an apology.

[Neb]

Epona, I just can't see why Anarchists want Anarchy, it can never exist for more than a short while. Order will arise somewhere, laws, rules, guidelines. It's part of human nature. I certainly wouldn't want to live in an Anarchistic society, either, I know that the vast majority of all humans cannot be trusted without laws and a government to keep them under control.

I call them stupid only because they cannot seem to realize that their "dream" cannot exist for more than a short while unless human nature was radically changed and that it'd most likely result in the loss of everything we've achieved so far.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Epona: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Just for the record, I find it odd that those people call themselves anarchists, and yet they belong to an "action network" which seems to me to be an organization. Not very anarchist if you ask me.

I disagree, surely anarchists are people who wish to acheive a state of anarchy in the future. They do not currently live in anarchy at the moment though, just that they wish to do so. The purpose of organisation is to effectively agitate to achieve anarchy - ie. a means to an end, not the end in itself. In the same way that a socialist does not currently live in socialism, so cannot necessarily live their life as if they were in a socialist society, but they work within the current system to achieve it.

BTW (this bit not aimed at you Chewbacca!), reason I got cross earlier is cos my bf is an anarchist - and he is NOT some f*cked up teenager as previous posters suggested anarchists were. Insult my friends and you insult me also. Hence my outburst. This is not an apology.[/QUOTE]Yeah I'm nearly an anarchist (more like a personal responsibilitist) myself, have been since I was a f'd up teenager. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I see your point Epona, a means to an end makes sense.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Neb: Epona, I just can't see why Anarchists want Anarchy, it can never exist for more than a short while. Order will arise somewhere, laws, rules, guidelines. It's part of human nature. I certainly wouldn't want to live in an Anarchistic society, either, I know that the vast majority of all humans cannot be trusted without laws and a government to keep them under control. I call them stupid only because they cannot seem to realize that their "dream" cannot exist for more than a short while unless human nature was radically changed and that it'd most likely result in the loss of everything we've achieved so far.

Actually if we were all perfect and willing to be %100 responsible for our own actions, then anarchy is equitable. We are a long way from being either perfect and/or responsible.

[Oblivion437]

What the hell... I'll go into this anyways. Anarchy has been proven impossible. Examples in the Russian revolution, the French revolution, The biweekly coups in Africa (Yes, that is a stereotype, and definitely not true) and all that show that as a species, we never were, aren't now, and most likely never will be capable of this existence. Human nature makes the reality of it impossible. If they can bend their theories around human nature, it's all possible. I've also noticed that most anarchists have numerous holes in their plan for the future, in that they mainly focus on getting anarchy, not so much as holding it. It's not getting it that's the problem, it's keeping it. Perhaps if you can show me an organized focus of what the post-revolt plan will be, then maybe I can even begin to accept the possibility of your ideas being workable.