DVD Version P2 Group Supremacy

[d0nj03]

OMG, look at these butchered comments. Half the discussion is missing. :rolleyes:

Are you such a pathetic intellectual coward that you can't let anyone know everything that has been said against your "arguments" and perhaps where you might have been proven wrong? Sheesh.

[PeacefulKancer]

Are you lost, confused, or just blind?

Butchered comments? What butchered comments?

[d0nj03]

Don't give me that, you spineless twit. This video had a number of comments from me and replies from you _before_ the discussion with MarxistStudant. Now they're all gone (yesterday I could still see one of mine here, now you've deleted that one too).

10 comments total? Yeah, right.

[PeacefulKancer]

Hey nimwit, maybe you should check WHICH video you are on before you start spouting bullshit? Mkay?

You were talking on another part then jumped over here to this part and started saying that I deleted comments. THIS IS PART 2. OK? Your first comment on part 2 was telling me that I moderated you because you are too stupid to look at which video you were commenting.

Get it straight.

[MarxistStudant]

These your interpretations of collectivism are actually ridiculous. The group doesn't have the right to kill, not even in a collectivist society! Look at the commune de paris! that was a true democracy and a true republic.

Democracy: *(aristoteles) When the free and poor have control of the government.

Republic: *(etimologic) Thing that belongs to all (res - thing; public - of all)

[PeacefulKancer]

They are not ridiculous Senor Marx. In a collectivist society people are categorized and if the larger category/group of people dictate that they need to remove something or someone from existance, they do..... and the mantra is "for the better of many."

And the last part you say I don't understand what you are even trying to say.

[MarxistStudant]

Marx said that tortures, and assassinations canot be justified in any society that calls people similars. Communism (Marx) calls everyone similar, so if they are to follow Marx, they can't act as tyrans.

Ethimologic means the origin of the word. (wheter it comes form greek, latin)

Aristoteles was a great philosofer of ancient grece.

[PeacefulKancer]

OK, so what does all this prove? I don't agree with unnessisary torture and/or assasinations either, and I am far from a communist. Everyone is similar. Um, no... Find me someone that is just like you. Find someone that is just like me.

OK, so etimologic and aristoteles... What about it/them? I don't want a democracy (mob rule), I want a Republic. They are two TOTALLY different things here. You do know that right?

[MarxistStudant]

What it proves? It proves that Marx (collectivist) is against half what you said collectivists are. The truth is you just can't devide all ideologies in "Good vs Evil".

The marxism is far more democratic (government of the poor and free) and would bring a true republic(thing of all).

The real problem was not to follow it correctely. I never sopported the "communist" tyrans for they aren't communist for real, for Marx, they are just liers and tyrans.

[MarxistStudant]

About the definitions, basically shouldn't we speak with the same definitions, we don't speak the same language. That's why it is necessary to define, for we wouldn't understant each other elseway.

So I'd ask you to present you defintion of republic, because the original one (thing that belongs to all) don't mach your individualism.

[PeacefulKancer]

Definition, Democracy: government by the people; the majority of people rule

Definition, Republic: government supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them; all people/groups are represented in government.

[MarxistStudant]

Fine. following your definitions, I'd like something better than a democracy and a republic.

I'd want a society in witch the people don't need government and live without it collectivelly, no property, one is rewarded by his recognition as a compassive human being, and as a model of individual, and isn't rewarded with money.

I want a society that actually doesn't need it. As means to get there I'd like a democracy, following the exemple of the commune de Paris.

[d0nj03]

Y'know, talking to you is much like talking to a brick wall. I just TOLD you it's not about what "always" happens in physical situations, but about the PRINCIPLE of the thing (it's what "all other things being equal" means - that we're talking about a purely hypothetical situation), yet you keep saying "always" as if you hadn't read or couldn't understand anything I've said.

This is clearly a waste of time. Good bye.

[PeacefulKancer]

"Well, assuming most homo sapiens have roughly the same total muscle force in their bodies, a group that's twice as numerous as another is also twice as powerful. Simple as that." So, I took that as for you to argue that the larger will always win, so I inquired.

[d0nj03]

I'm talking about the statement at 01:37 in this clip, which blatantly contradicts the theory put forward in the previous clip that rights derive from power. Newsflash: larger groups have more power than smaller ones. Of course they should have more rights (according to his own logic of "might is right", which I don't necessarily agree with).

[PeacefulKancer]

Who says that a larger group always has more power than a smaller group?

[d0nj03]

It's not "always", it's in this theoretical case where all other factors are considered equal and omitted. The only thing discussed is the NUMBER of people in the different groups. Well, assuming most homo sapiens have roughly the same total muscle force in their bodies, a group that's twice as numerous as another is also twice as powerful. Simple as that.

[PeacefulKancer]

So, you believe that a group of 50 people will always be beat by a group of >50 people because their average muscle force is less than the group of 51 (or more) people?

[d0nj03]

In part one they just claimed that rights are derived from (physical/military) power but now they're suddenly blind to the fact that the larger group has more power than the smaller group? According to their own logic, it should follow that the rule of the majority DOES make sense. But logic doesn't seem to be this libertarian propagandist's strong point, does it...

[PeacefulKancer]

What are you talking about? What logic here is messing you up?