@pittland44 direct democracy is one of the tenets of anarchism, a worker is a person that participates in the process of production of goods or necessities by mixing their labor with a determined number of resources
@pittland44 do you need a government in order to have a direct democracy? of course not direct democracy as in the people taking the decisions directly without having to vote for representatives
@pittland44 capitalist, people who own land,resources and private property and do not mix their labor with it, lazy people who do nothing and contribute nothing to the community
@pittland44 owning something and not using it or working on it, also owning a sum of resources and not contributing to the process by which those resources can be used to provide goods and necessities
@DanteWhite Also, in most capitalist societies the laziest people are usually at the bottom. In the US, for example, welfare recipients work far less (>15 hours/week)than anyone else and are most likely to exist below the poverty line, where as people who make over 150,000 are the most likely to work 60 hours or more.
@pittland44 there are many poor hard working people this is more common in the third world tough it also happens in developed countries another thing is that the big bankers business owners and Stock point holders do way less than the majority of poor people, and dont even lift a finger to make their own food cus they can pay other people to do everything for them worst part is that many of these fortunes are inherited or obtained unjustly by lobbying congressmen
@pittland44 lets put it like this capitalists people who are owners of the means of production dont work cus they dont need to and if they do something it is to keep their fortune and just the same way u would not measure the troubles that any person goes through to balance his budget as work then u cannot count the efforts of a capitalist to keep his fortune as work. so since capitalist are the "boss" they dont work a set number of hours. in contrast a person from the third world
@DanteWhite That doesn't exactly add up: The vast majority of business owners (at least in the US) are small business owners, and they usually don't make much more than the national average for full time salaried workers, it's usually about $3,000 to $5,000 more a year, but that is really about it.
@pittland44 im not talking about small businesses because in most of these the owner also works. the big problem i am talking about are the big banks, businesses and corporations the people who have the majority of the resources of the world in their hands
@pittland44 works 19 hours a day for a miserable wage at sweatshops and they still live in poverty. also the last question i did not say that not growing my own food is immoral i said that capitalist dont lift a finger even to cook their own food as sort of a joke cus u know the avarge joe when not eating fast food well he has to cook clean and do all that stuff
@DanteWhite People work in sweatshops not because they are forced to but because they are desperately poor. Working conditions get better as personal & investment capital increase in a society. Also, how exactly do you intend to eliminate all social hierarchies? Are all socioeconomic hierarchies even a bad thing?
@pittland44 yes they are a bad thing because its like say racism it judges people and determines how much they are worth, it determines their fate and it gives them unequal access to the resources given to us by nature. and yes people work in sweatshops because they are poor but why are they poor? could it be that these first world countries and their big companies and colonization took everything from them
@DanteWhite So seniority, which is a hierarchy, is as irredeemably bad as racism? Scholastic achievement hierarchies, such as honor rolls, are just as bad as the hindu caste system?
@pittland44 the problem with these hierarchies u mention such as scholastic achievement its that first of all the scholastic system is not efficient and needs to be re-thinked there are some good texts by michell foucault that give a good analysis of this. also the scholastic system is one based on competition which is why we live in a society where everyone seems to be in their own world and the sense of community seems to be lost. this is more apparent in the big cities than in small towns
@DanteWhite I was reading about Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, they were turned on and attacked by their own allies, so that worked well. So let me get this straight, you go on about the natural world, but ignore the fact that organisms in the natural world compete constantly. Also, how do you get the best qualified individual without any type of open competition? Or do you favor a technocracy where all our career choices are made for us. Also, we can't all go back to small towns
@pittland44 yes the communist turned on the anarchists it happens that is why there is tensions between both cause one is authoritarian and the other is liberal.organisms compete but not with theyre own species as mutual aid is necessary to survive if humans did not help each other and we would have been competing in prehistoric times we would have been extinct. the best qualified individual thing is complicated because in anarchism labor division and educational system would be reformed
@DanteWhite I'm sorry, but organisms of the same species do compete with each other, all the time. From penguins jockeying for the best nesting spot, to rams butting heads to lions fighting over who eats first animals of the same species, even same flock, herd, or pride, compete with each other all the time.
@pittland44 there is a biology book by peter kropotkin called Mutual Aid:A Factor of Evolution u should check it out. competition is to only happen as a defense mechanism which is necessary because of their not being enough resources for everyone in a given environment,however in these modern times of mass production where there is clearly enough for everyone as the rich have about 80% of the worlds resources to their hands,competition is not necessary,and mutual aid is more important to survive
@DanteWhite If competition is a bad thing then why is it socialist societies were and are the ones experiencing things such as famines & shortages, the Soviet Union and China pre 1990 show this dynamic over and over again. You talk of mass production and prosperity, but it is free markets, not socialism, which give us such things.
@pittland44 and anarchism promotes the free market, the difference with laissez faire is that the markets are not privately owned by capitalist, but collectively owned by the workers
@DanteWhite the neurotic producerism, the third world camp following, the anarchistic streak, the rampant corporatism, the quest to create a "natural" community, the opposition to free markets, the constant demands for a more democratic democracy, the antiwestern bent. Hmmm, where have I heard all of these before?
@pittland44 i must keep on reminding u that anarchism supports the free market, the only difference in terms of market economics between anarchism and laissez faire is property rights and the non-hierarchy(except for guidance as a doctor need to guide the nurses and the experts help the less experienced) in the company,coorporation or bussiness.(a problem with capitalism is that in many markets the people who are on top on many ocassions contribute nothing to the work and have little experience)
@DanteWhite On some occasions that does happen, but if everything is running right those people usually fail. However, there are cases where people who aren't experts actually do know what they are talking about. Case in point, Bill Gates. The guy is a college dropout, and yet he started microsoft and profited off one simple idea; nonproprietary software coding.
@DanteWhite Also, how is free economic association with people compensating eachother for goods and services not mutual aid? Or should everyone have to work for free? You do realize the classic trope "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" discourages hard work and innovation, it's also an invitation to state sanctioned slavery.
@pittland44 i do not support the" to each according to his need" thing(tough i think it is very noble but also utopic) in that i disagree with kropotkin and anarco-communism, however mikhail bakunin and anarco-colectivism supports "to each according to his contribution" i am more on that page something that is way better than the "to each according to his luck and privilege" which sums up the way it works in capitalism
@DanteWhite Have you ever seen a movie called "enemy at the gates?" It's about the battle of Stalingrad, in it two friends are talking, a sniper & a political officer. the political officer talks of the soviet union: We fought so hard to create a world without rich & poor, but in the end man is still man. There will always be rich & poor. those rich in gifts, those poor in gifts, rich in love, poor in love. There is more but that is the main thrust of it, and the problem with all socialism.
@DanteWhite But wait, you yourself said that as an anarchist your basic belief system was nearly identical to the communist program. Why then would communists fight their own? Would not mutual aid make more sense, where is that great confluence of direct democracy you spoke of?
@DanteWhite If your narrative is correct, then how come life expectancy in Africa has gone down since the Europeans left, or median income, educational attainment, or one of a dozen other metrics. The same is true in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Also, what about western organizations, such as missionary groups and aid societies, which send money and resources to third world countries to help people there?
@pittland44 the problem with those statistics is this. if you live in a garden where u have all your basic needs and then some people go to that garden and take all they want , and then they leave will your life expectancy be the same?? also note that in colonies where europeans lived (except the ones who have been divided in struggles for political power)the quality of life was worse for the native as europeans got all the better jobs and resources and many natives were discriminated
@DanteWhite The real reason those people are poor is that they don't have enough economic development to raise demand for labor, thus there is a surplus of labor which results in a low price for labor (ie wages) which means that they can't get a good price for the work they do. The next factor is that a lot of those countries are usually resource rich but haven't developed any but one or two industries based on those resources. In economic terms they are called single commodity economies.
@pittland44 that is a myth, do you think the mayans , the aztecs were poor? do you think that arab countries in the middle east were poor before europeans and jews came to colonize? being rich does not mean having a mcdonalds and large buildings. being rich means having more than enough natural resources to get by. these people lived in perfect harmony with nature then the europeans came and took everything and sunk them into poverty, demand for labor will always exist because all people have
@DanteWhite Before the discovery of oil in the region the middle east was one of the poorest, least educated, most underdeveloped areas on the globe. Oil has made a lot of those countries.
yes pre-colonial middle east was uneducated and underdeveloped --_____--, with all the contributions they made to mathematics, the great arabian kingdoms, some of the philosophers in the renaissance took ideas from those of the middle east for the development of science as we know it today as most of the knowledge that we take from greeks and other ancient civilizations were preserved by arabs and it was not available in europe in the dark ages also many words u use like ALGEBRA come from arabs
@DanteWhite Indeed algebra does come to us from the arabs, as does things like fractions and zero. However, have you read about the middle east during the 16th through the 19th century? Mass decline in population, literacy rates of less than 5%, tribal & sectarian violence. Also, weren't the great arab kingdoms empires as well? Weren't the advances you spoke of made possible by their own version of imperialism, made possible by their conquests of older greek, roman & byzantine territories?
@pittland44 yes, but the point i made was not to say if the arabs were imperialist or not my point was to show how the arabs were not poor in pre-colonial times and that all of their modern misfortunes are a product of european and jewish colonization. i don not justify arab imperialism nor do i think 2 wrongs make a right
@DanteWhite actually, by the time the europeans showed up iranosemitic culture had stagnated. During the caliphates they were some of the most advanced cultures in the world, by the 19th century they had fallen apart. There are several reasons for this. The first is bad taxation and currency practices of the ottoman empire. Another is a failure to establish anything resembling seperation of powers (there are reems of commentary on these practices alone).
@DanteWhite comes from certain archaic cultural practices. Such as the discrimination against women, to the point where they will mutilate them for "immoral" practices, such as getting raped, and polygamy, which causes a whole host of social problems. Also, how are the Israelis a problem? Israel is the size of New Jersey, and the Arab citizens of Israel were the only arabs in the middle east who could vote until 2003?
@pittland44 i agree with you that arab culture mostly because of their religious practices is a big problem however this does not justify colonization and the stealing of resources by europeans. jews are a problem because they oppress muslims economically they buy land make monopolies and take resources in the middle east. there are also numerous accounts of violence by the israeli army towards the muslim people
@DanteWhite Okay, let's get something straight, if you buy something, you buy definition are not stealing it. If the US buys oil from Kuwait, then we aren't stealing anything. Also, what about arab moslem terrorism towards israeli citizens? Or are you going to repeat that thuroughly fascist trope that third worlders are always in the right? Also, I disagree that Islam itself is entirely, becuase if you go to other (nonarab) moslem countries (malaysia, albania) they don't have those same problems
@pittland44 you realize that beginning the 20th century the us would bribe governments in the middle east by giving them military aid to give rise to their tyrannies and example of this is the shah in iran and saddam hussein. and about muslim terrorism this does not come from nothing muslim terrorism comes as a reaction from all the years of colonial and economic oppression which i do not justify cus 2 wrongs dont make a right but i understand why they do it
@DanteWhite The Shah of Iran & Hussein occured much later. But to be fair the US under Woodrow Wilson did far more of that type of thing in places like central & south america, however, wilson was also an ardent socialist. Also, didn't the Soviet Union do the same thing in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe?
@pittland44 i am as much against state communism as i am against captalism and state communism in instances is even worse than capitalism, the soviet union was just as bad as the usa
@pittland44 no i dont think people are innately good or innately bad, i think the way we organize ourself the culture, and all represive mechanism perpetuated by the superego to justify the pursuit of desires of the id of the elite and the normalization of this processes determine our conduct. i do not think "bad people are bad" In their minds some think they are doing the right thing however if by ignorance and misinformation that good harms more than it does good then things must be set right
@pittland44 well i think psychoanalysis is is worthy of more credit than behaviorism because it deals and fulfills the gaps that many schools of psychology such as behaviorism has left in its arrogant effort to fit in into that classical useless scientific paradigm ,it is highly empirical and based on appearances and it lacks theoretical concepts that explains those phenomena apparent to our senses
@DanteWhite The problem with Freudian psychology is that it is full of Freuds own personal perversions and a lot of strange transferance from freud to his patients. Like the whole point where he says all taboos are the result of people repressing desire. A lot of taboos are because realized doing certain acts leads to problems, like inbreeding, which freud stated societal aversion of was a sign of intense desire to do so, rather than it causes genetic problems.
@DanteWhite Also, how is the scientific method and the arrangment of theories useless? Also, if you want to get into it, freudian thinking is so contrary to so many ideas that it is almost unscientific, and quite frankly most psychologists and psychiatrists are starting to move away from it because it is blatently wrong in certain assumptions and assertions and is obviously the product of perverse mind.
@pittland44 psychoanalytical psychology cannot be reduced to freud just as the same way behaviorism cannot be reduced to watson there there are other proponents of psychoanalytical psychology like jacques lacan i do not view or follow freud as having the last word on psychology but i think psychoanalysis in contrast with behaviorism is not a ideology but a science as it provides theories to explain the causes of events and it doesnt just describe the relation of the events like in behaviorism
@DanteWhite Psychoanalysis (nor any other scientific subset or discipline) cannot prove anything, science is deductive, not inductive, it is the elimination of possibility, not the affirmation. Sorry, it just really bugs me when people say "prove" unless your talking mathematics or law.
@pittland44 actually tough science portrays itself as deductive it is inductive because to get theories and laws from which you can engage in the process of deduction you need to make some observations and make inductions from these observations. this is not me making this up read up alan chalmers. there is a discipline called epistemology which goes through this and how science is not objective in much detail another good author is thomas s. kuhn
@DanteWhite Right, I've heard the arguments that science is not objective, I would ammend it to say that science when done right is objective, but most scientists are not.
@pittland44 also behaviorism is very limited to stimulus-response, as if that was all center of that which we can call the mind(it does not take into account the existence of the unconscious), a failure of behaviorism is that it treats stimulus as natural when most of the social and cultural circumstances that lead us to react or behave in a certain way are unnatural and created by the structures of power. could behaviorism be a tool to force(condition) us to adapt to such structures? maybe...
@pittland44 u know, another problem i have with capitalism is that it reduces every aspect of life to the market. u said some countries are poor because of because of lack of economic development and single commodity economies,that got me thinking, and i wonder does the basic necessities of life need to be reduced to the exchange of goods system we call a market is it fair that people starve and die just because they cant exchange goods and the resources to produce their own were raped from them
@DanteWhite Technically capitalism doesn't do that, economists do that, but laissez faire doesn't. Keep in mind that is what economists are paid to do, just a chemists are paid to break everything down into a chemical frame or reference, or physicists, etc.
@DanteWhite A lot of places are extremely resource rich, and it is not do to the actions of whites past or present, but rather interal strife, that holds them back. Look at Zimbabwe, before Mugabe took power the country had one of the richest farming economies in the world. They were known as the bread basket of Africa. Then Robert took power, and promising a fair dispersal of land to the people who worked it (sound familiar), proceeded to "redistribute" the land for "fair use" and ruin theland
@DanteWhite Also, there is a lot of research coming out that shows that foreign aid doesn't really work. The reason is that people don't stand on their own and it allows corrupt governments to be big sugar daddies, as well as a host of other problems.
@pittland44 the auto-gestion principal of anarchy encourages people and communities to be responsible for themselves and thus agreeing with u and such research they point to the fact that government aid or foreign aid is not helpful and it is usually a tool to bribe people into the justification of slavery
@DanteWhite The other problem is a lot of foreign aid allows corrupt governments to remain in power, because they can use it to pay people off. Robert Mugabe & the PLO are great examples of that.
@DanteWhite About islamic terrorism, if it is a response to colonialism, a dubious proposition at best, why then are Syrians & Egyptians attacking the US? As opposed to France & Britain, which actually did colonize those places. Also, why are the US & Israel always the villians? You realize how fascistic (and even nazistic) that is right?
@pittland44 there is also terrorism in europe more than in america, the focus on the violence today against the usa is that it is the major proponent of capitalism and almost all of the world's economic activity revolves around wall-street, also usa is the major agent of globalization and neo-liberalism. the other thing is who is responsible for the recent war in the middle east? usa, self defence is not fascistic try being an arab in iraq or iran for a week and ull understand
@DanteWhite So, wanting to trade with people is evil? Also, the Iraqis are happy we came, they want us out now, which is understandable, but the majority of the country is happy we overthrew saddam, particularly the Kurds in the north & Shiites in the south, as well as other fringe groups. Also, the Iranians aren't Arabs (and don't call them that cause they really really take offense at that). Was the Shah a dictator, hell yes. Was he way better than the mullahs? Oh hell yeah.
@pittland44 neither the mullahs or the Shah or saddam , also have in mind the us did nothing good getting rid of saddam cause they are the ones who made his rule possible in the first place and supported his regime while the cold war was active
@DanteWhite So, removing the problem that the US caused is not a good thing? Is this US even capable of doing good in your eyes? Or is it objectively evil?
@pittland44 it is a good thing but it does not give them merit or puts them in the good guy position if you kill someone and then hypothetically revive them its as if you had done nothing. and in this case worse yet because the usa cant bring back all of the lives and repay the misery that tyrannical regimes such as those of the shah and saddam caused the people of the middle east
@DanteWhite So the fact that the Nazis, empire of the rising sun and saddam are all gone and that south korea, nicaragua, greece, germany, japan, thailand, and kuwait are all independent countries that are free to go their own way means nothing? Our screw ups forever damn us?
@pittland44 is not that screw ups forever damn its just that the usa keeps screwing up and that whenever they fix their screw ups its for hidden interests or to "not look bad" like when they stopped supporting rafael trujillo in the dominican republic even tough they were good allies before and how they allied the soviets to fight the nazis then went against them or how they allied the middle east to fight the soviests even trained terrorists like al-qaeda and when the ussr fell,u know the story
@DanteWhite That type of thing is not new, look at the dynastic wars in europe. If you want to get into it the British were responsible for the rise of Prussia and the French were responsible for the rise of Piedmont, the two kingdoms united germany & italy respectively which directly led to WWI. The fact is these things happen. Today's ally is tommorows enemy.
@pittland44 yes todays ally is tommorows enemy but never has this happened so frequently and in such a hypocrite manner as with the united states of america
@pittland44 yeah but still, that this was done on dynastic wars does not justify that anyone be it the us or any other country go around starting wars as modern wars do not serve the interests of the people but the interests of the governments and the elite and they treat people for their wars like pawns in chess
@DanteWhite See your problem is that you keep trying to make the US out to be this evil superpower, it's not. It is far more benign than any other superpower, and has done much to alleviate suffering and tyranny. Now we've made our mistakes sure, plenty of them, but we at least try to correct them, which is more than can be said for others such as the Russians & Chinese. Also, how are modern or ancient wars any different. People & nations fight, that's all there is to it.
@pittland44 some ancient wars were more related to the interests of the people and not just their leaders by modern i mean most of western history since about the great roman empire
@pittland44 an example is greek wars with persians sure on the persian side it was for the leaders interest but on the greek side it was something the people choose democratically because it served their interest another example were wars between vikings and war between indian tribes. more modern examples include anarchist guerrillas like the ezln,the spanish during the civil war are another example. another example is the battle for independence in the united states
@DanteWhite Only Athens was a democracy, and even they had Pericles. Also, the Indians would actually appoint a dictator to lead the war effort, they called them war chiefs, some good examples are Tecumseh, Osceola & Geronimo, all were excellent leaders, and fantastic tacticians, but they were not "elected." Also, what struggle in the US are you speaking of?
@pittland44 yes they had war chiefs but the war chiefs did not start the war the wars were started for the interests of the tribes not like today where if a president wants to go to war and all of the country is basically against it the war still goes.the struggle in the us that i mentioned was the war in the us i am speaking of is the american revolution 1775
@DanteWhite That is why the senate & congress have to vote on going to war. The president cannot declare war, he can't even declare a police action. Technically speaking the US hasn't been at war since world war 2. All they have been is police actions, which is actually worse.
@pittland44 the senate and congress do not represent the interests of the whole people you cant have things like the war in iraq going down when clearly the american people are against it
@DanteWhite Yeah but according to you all representative bodies are illegitmate (how Rousseauian of you). No representative body is ever going to represent everyone (nor should they). Also, most Americans were for the war(72%), and most of us do want to win it(59%).
@pittland44 that is why representative bodies should not exist and we should have direct democracy. i am really skeptical of those 72% for the war numbers i must request of you were did you get that information from and what are your sources? many statistics are manipulated and dont take account many people that do not wish to participate. remember you have academic peer reviewed sociological statistics and then u have bullshit fox news, cnn, new york times, propaganda statistics
@DanteWhite Here's a problem. Anyone who get's "unearned" income is a capitalist (your definition, not mine) so anyone who has a savings account, lends out any amount of money for repayment, or owns any types of stocks/bonds/securities/derivatives is automatically a capitalist. So, people who own stock in the company they work in immediately become those capitalist parasites right?
@pittland44 yes he is a capitalist parasite because money earned from stocks is not money earned by ones contribution to the process of production the money he earns for the work he does in the company is ok the money he earns from stock is not
@DanteWhite That's garbage. If you invest money maybe you aren't involved, but you gave the company money to use to start up, expand, create new products, etc. There is nothing parasitic about it. How else can people increase their earning power than by investing money? How do new businesses get startup funds? How do you add new products or hire new people?
@pittland44 the problem with your economic rhetoric is that ur making points playing by the rules of the system.first of all these people have money to give to companies because of privilege they do not contribute anything as money is only important because of the system but in an objective position what is important is the labor not the buying of labor. cause these people give money sure but what is the money used on? to take advantage of others people lack of resources to bribe them into labor
@DanteWhite That's simply not correct. Now money is only valuable as a unit of exchange, but that is precisely what gives it it's value. So, hiring someone to perform a particular set of duties based on a skill set is bribery? Wrong, it's called paying someone to do a job. It is not bribery. Also, saying your position is objective is a lie. Labor, does not have a set value, as different types of labor exist in different quantities and have different demands.
@DanteWhite That is why a doctor costs more than a waiter. Now no product has a set value at an given time, because price fluctuates. What does privilege have to do with anything? If people choose to invest money they have saved up by their hard work, then that is their business. Should they have it taken away from them and given to others who are deemed "more deserving" cause that would be stealing. Again, how is hiring someone for a job bad?
@pittland44 hiring itself is bad. hiring should not exist it should not be i hire you to work for me, but rather it should be i invite you to work with me. hiring is bribery because if you are in a position to hire is because you have an unjust advantage in the access of resources.i never said labor had a set value i said labor was the real contribution and money is not.its really hard these days to become rich just by hard work it has more to do with luck thats why its privilege it is not fair
@DanteWhite Hiring is paying a person to do a particular job. How do people have an unjust access to resources, if you pay for it, it's yours. Labor itself is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. Ideas, such as blueprints, chemical formulas, business strategies, etc. all have value. As do materials, such a ore, lumber, cotton, wheat, etc. Labor is only one piece, and quite frankly, money has more value than labor because it can buy more and is more versatile. That is why labor theory fails
@pittland44 people have unjust access to resources because a few elite have more resources at their hands than the majority and many of the first capitalist were already people with money who got control of the means of production by privilege and or luck. ideas are a form of intellectual and creative labor and materials are resources so no matter how many times you go around it will always come down to the exchange of labor for resources and vice versa
@DanteWhite So things like savings, wise investment, being smart with your money, leaving an inheritance to your descendants, good values, intelligence, cunning, leadership skills, creativity all of that is unjust and immoral.
@pittland44 savings, wise investment, being smart with money and inheritance is unjust because theyr are fake values that emphasize on the survival through the adaptation of the capitalist system. adopting such values makes you 1)conform to the unjust immoral system 2) support its existence
good values? define good values?
intelligence is valuable, leadership skills imply superiority so its off the map for me however i support experienced guidance.creativity is very important and valuable also
@DanteWhite Seriously? You don't know what good values are? Good values are values that promote success over failure, lead to well being (both materially and spiritually). For example, valueing hard work over idelness. Monogamy over promiscuity, courage over cowardice, virtue over vice, frugality over foolishness. Good values are values that promote the well being of a person by making a judgment of one way of doing things over another and assigning a value to those distinctions basedon outcome
@DanteWhite How is saving money immoral? How is investing money wisely immoral? You keep saying laissez faire is immoral but you don't have a concrete reason. Other than some people do better than others for various reasons. That gives us a clue to what you mean by equality is equality of outcome, which has never happened and will never happen.
Leadership is off the map for you only because your ideology rejects the idea of leadership and the difference between good and bad leaders.
@DanteWhite That rejection of all leadership and authority (including moral) plus the rejection of discrimination leads you to say things like having a job and being a slave are the same thing, that representative government and totalitarianism are one in the same, and that all economic success must be the result of exploitation and injustice, because one method cannot be better than another.
@DanteWhite Some people are better at some things than others. My best friend is a vastly better cook than I am, but I kick his butt at mathematics. He's better at black jack, but I'm dynamite at paigow. He can run a 6:00 mile, and but I can bench 190lbs. can you make us equal in those respects? Leadership ability (both natural & learned) is not evenly distributed throughout the population. So, unless you're willing to reject other qualities (intelligence & imagination, both of which are not
@DanteWhite evenly distributed than you have to accept that some people are naturally better leaders than other. Your's is the problem of all levelers.
@DanteWhite Let's take a step back for a second. In 5-10 points please define your personal position. Also, you didn't actually respond to my points about either economics or biology.
@pittland44 regarding economics i cannot enter in much details as the economic inner workings of communism,capitalism,and anarchism are different involving different concepts and mechanisms. my point in economics is that capitalism has failed just by looking at the world we live in u would know, and it is a reality that big capitalist corporations exploit. so all the economic theory made to justify captalism leads to error if such system has had petty results on our species and eviroment.
@DanteWhite How has Laissez Faire failed? If anything socialism, whether total or partial, has failed and is failing right now, the economic distress in the US, the collapse of the EU and the euro, China's rejection of socialist economic policy, it all points to one thing. Socialism does not work, never has outside of small voluntary communes, like the kibbutz in Israel, which you probably hate.
@pittland44 state-socialism has failed not anarco-colectivism or libertarian socialism. both capitalism and marxism have been responsible for all the inequality and negation of liberty in the world. all anarchist societies have been successful but then come the capitalist or marxists with their police and military and ruin everything
@DanteWhite Why? because you can't have anything resembling a military or police force in an anarchistic system, it goes against the basic premise, as do things like law, courts etc.. There is also the little problem that most self proclaimed anarchists are themselves destructive, dedicated to "tearing down the system" without ever thinking that it may serve a purpose.
@pittland44 what do u mean by tearing down the system might serve a purpose? i do agree that anarchism is deficient in proposing institutions for defense such as guerrillas which was one of the problems with the spanish anarchists they did not build up a good defense system to protect themselves from enemies however modern anarchist movements such as the EZLN have been working on this issue and so will many anarchists (as anarchism is not dogma)will learn from their past mistakes and improve
@DanteWhite Anarchism is deficient for a lot of things, such as civic maintenance, utilities, roads, etc. The problem with anarchy is that there is neither government nor even civil society, much less any kind of social contract. Also, I said the system has a purpose, not tearing it down. Most of the time that is just mindless destruction.
@pittland44 social contract exists in anarchism via direct democracy and civic maintenance,utilities, and roads can be managed by worker owned private corporations
@pittland44 that shareholders do not contribute to the process of production therefore they do not know what it takes to keep things running in terms of labor and a worker held company can take decisions based on the need of the workers and the process of production and since workers are the majority of the community it also helps the company take decisions for the benefit of the community since it knows the needs of it
@DanteWhite If that theory worked then United Airlines would be the most efficient company in the world, because it is employee owned. Also, the needs of the workers are only one piece of the needs of a company. The failure of many employee held companies is that the employees bleed the company when it cannot afford to meet their demands.
@pittland44 some problems with many employee owned non profit companies is that they face competition from monopolizing companies which( agreeing with some laissez faire theory) use the government to regulate the markets to assure the position of these big monopolies and most of these companies are usually privately owned and the owners go around lobbying congressmen funding their campaigns in a exchange for legislation that serves their interest.now how can you compete with that!?
@DanteWhite There are good employee owned companies, or part owned, but they are usually small or midsized firms. A good example is Dawn soap, which is 20% employee controlled (approximate).
One thing I do hate about a lot of businesses is how a lot of companies will hire outsiders for managerial positions ahead of existing employees. Office Depot did that (I worked there for a year) and it made me so mad. They would listen to any idiot outside the company but not their own people.
@pittland44 going off topic,i would like to say that i have found this conversation awesome and that u cant have interesting debates like these with anyone i really appreciate the time that had been put to this,and i recognize u as being really smart more than the 90% fools lurking around youtube,tough our opinions contrast i find many of your points valid and i do not hold any grudge against u or anything like that,but i wanted to point out that me being a punk does not make me fall on idiocy
@pittland44 other punks ? or other anarchists? ive met dumb anarchists and smart ones as with everything for example u have "anarchists" like the protagonist from this movie and then you have ones like noam chomsky
@pittland44 independently of what you may think of chomsky u must admit the guy is really smart not just for his political work but for his contributions to linguistics and psychology.besides terrorists cannot be judged so subjectively sure it is wrong what they do but it is a product of certain cultural social and economic circumstances and if the things that happened in the middle east happened in america as often im sure there would be a lot of terrorist, tough usa foreing policy is terrorist
@DanteWhite Okay, the US's foreign policy is not terrorism, that is just plain stupid. Hell, Roman foreign policy was not terrorism. Also, Chomsky is smart, there in is half the problem. Also, I've heard more fascistic/nazistic rhetoric from Chomsky than any other thinker than Peter Singer. The technocracy, rampant populism, third world camp following, festish for youth, it's all there in his beliefs.
@pittland44 u cannot tell me that the atomic bombing of hiroshima was not terrorism? or that agent orange was not terrorism? or that the bombing in cuba was not terrorism? or that police going into black neighborhoods to harass the people was not terrorism? COINTELPRO was no terrorism?
@DanteWhite No, Hiroshima & Nagasaki were legitimate, albeit horrifying, acts of war. The difference between war & terrorism is war is carried out by the recognized armies on behalf of a nation's government. Now is war awful and to generally be avoided, yes. But it is not the same as terrorism. Also, if we're going to get into the problems affecting blacks how about the fact that the most common cause of death amongst black people 18-24 is other black people? What about the ghetto chique that
@pittland44 hiroshima and nagasaki tough legitimate was not ethical and it was a tool used to put fear in a certain group so that they would surrender or give in to some set of demands it is no different than muslim terrorism so going by your logic the usa would be terrorist who operate on a terrorist supporting law that makes their terrorism legit.
@DanteWhite The difference is the difference between the vietcong and the North Vietnamese army. The difference is the difference between the sturmabteiling and the wehrmacht, it is the difference between the weather underground. For example, as much as I may dislike Iran's revolutionary guard, they aren't a terrorist organization. They are a recognized, uniformed, authorized body. They fall under the geneva convention. Now you obviously can't tell the difference between warfare, but others can
@pittland44 be it as it is it still kills innocent people it is still for the benefit of the few i couldnt care less about the differences between warfare its all the same garbage no matter on its legitimacy which is a product of corrupt interests anyway
@DanteWhite says crap like "fuck the police" or the black panthers setting buildings on fire and ambushing police & fire fighters when they responded? Now Bajia de las cochinas & annam/ da viet? Those were military actions undetaken to defend either this country or it's allies from their shared enemies.
@pittland44 i agree with sayings like fuck the police they are perpetrators of brutality and use their badges as an excuse to manifest their sadistic desires( i am not talking about all cops but most of them) there is also some psychological details to be added into this.phillip zimbardo went into this with great detail on how power and authority corrupts and makes u a sadistic beast. that is why i agree with the anarchist tought of no gods no masters neither ruler nor slave and "fuck authority"
@pittland44 it is not garbage its been scientifically researched look up the stanford prision experiment, look at this other documentary called 5 steps to tyranny and read some phillip zimbardo.the position of authority corrupts. why do you think communist regimes like the soviet union ended up like they did: the consent of their authoritative power, why do you think fascist governments and dictatorships have done the worst atrocities in modern history: the consent of their authoritative power
@pittland44 the situaion with blacks is complicated because you have to remember that violence amongst black is a product of: first the introduction of drugs and its violent trade into black community via federal and government agencies, the encouraging of the illegal drug trade because of prohibition.second it is a product of the capitalism and the marketing of the gansta rap steriotype if such behaviour is prevalent it is because it has been advertised to blacks as something to want and be
@DanteWhite No, the real source of violence amongst blacks is the breakdown of the nuclear family in black neighborhoods. If you factor out fatherlessness, the difference between black and white crime goes to zero.
@pittland44 so u are saying that a household where there is a lesbian couple of two mothers they cannot raise their children well? do we even need fathers? let me tell you something i myself and a lot of people i know were brought up in broken homes and that does not make us violent criminals and also what makes u think that black parents are not responsible you cannot generalize like that and if there is a breakdown in the hood its because of the reasons i mentioned:drugs,stereotype capitalism
@DanteWhite So, wait, aren't your reasons generalizations? Why are your reasons the only legitimate ones. If you have a child at sixteen (regardless of race) and have neither the means nor the maturity to properly raise them then you are being irresponsible. That is the definition of being irresponsible. Also, are all children from broken homes going to become criminals, of course not. But, they are more likely to, a lot more likely to. Children of single mothers account for 70% of the US
@DanteWhite Prison population, regardless of race. They account for 86% of all children with behavioral disorders. They are 64% more likely to drop out of school, and 61% more likely to suffer from substance abuse problems. The fact is, Dads count. Children need a father, just as much as they need a mother, plain and simple.
Man! in terms of music, this is the best segment- Minor Threat... Velvet Underground... doesn't have mother of pearl tho...
cooldevinis 1 year ago
I wanna tell you a little story, 'cause it makes me warm inside.
straightedge442 1 year ago
GOD DAMN ALL OF THEESE PAGES LOOK LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY COPPERCAB
713melanie713 1 year ago
I JUST WANNA WRITE SOMETHING ON CAPS LOCK
MirLjudima 1 year ago
yo you guys should stop with the fucking CAPS LOCK
metalrocks19737 1 year ago
mike is awesome, he stands for punk, he jusy dont look like it lol
Curious6Kevin9 1 year ago
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WERE YELLING ABOUT
chandlerosenboss260 1 year ago 2
THIS MOVIE IS ENTERTAINING WHILE EATING JELLO.
GoodSydeBill 1 year ago 6
I THINK ITS FUNNY THAT EVERYBODIES CAP LOCKS BUTTON IS STUCK
benthebulldog 1 year ago 4
do they worship devil or something if so i gotta stop watching this
roxi1adi 1 year ago
@roxi1adi
LOL
psychedellicdude 1 year ago
LETS FIGHT ON YOUTUBE WITH PSEUDOSOPHISTICATED VOCABULARY
justiniscoolohyea 1 year ago 23
ITS FUNNY THAT EVERYONE HERE ACTS LIKE THEY KNOW WHAT THEYRE TALKING ABOUT BUT ARE ACTUALLY GIGANTIC FUCKING TOOLS.
345345453254 1 year ago 15
@345345453254 can't remember who said it but "anyone who thinks they know what the hell is going on, is obviously full of shit"
ashwazere 1 year ago
@345345453254 im saving this whole wall of posts for future reference
Fahstudios13579 1 year ago
@345345453254 Correct, now how can you fix this problem which you have made clear?
Allanpullay 1 year ago
anyone know the song around 7:00???
nofxopivyrancid 1 year ago
@nofxopivyrancid "Look back and laugh" by Minor Threat.
Layne77Staley 1 year ago
FUCK YOU SANDY
BisuSC 1 year ago
she is such a whore.
soundofmadness11 1 year ago
So, you are advocating both direct democracy & anarchy? Also, how do you define "worker"?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 direct democracy is one of the tenets of anarchism, a worker is a person that participates in the process of production of goods or necessities by mixing their labor with a determined number of resources
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite No, anarchism strictly defined means no government whatsoever.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 do you need a government in order to have a direct democracy? of course not direct democracy as in the people taking the decisions directly without having to vote for representatives
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Also, given that criteria, what groups of people do not count as workers?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 capitalist, people who own land,resources and private property and do not mix their labor with it, lazy people who do nothing and contribute nothing to the community
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean by "not mix their labor with it?"
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 owning something and not using it or working on it, also owning a sum of resources and not contributing to the process by which those resources can be used to provide goods and necessities
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So people who don't use their property in a way that you see fit should have it seized from them?
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Also, in most capitalist societies the laziest people are usually at the bottom. In the US, for example, welfare recipients work far less (>15 hours/week)than anyone else and are most likely to exist below the poverty line, where as people who make over 150,000 are the most likely to work 60 hours or more.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 there are many poor hard working people this is more common in the third world tough it also happens in developed countries another thing is that the big bankers business owners and Stock point holders do way less than the majority of poor people, and dont even lift a finger to make their own food cus they can pay other people to do everything for them worst part is that many of these fortunes are inherited or obtained unjustly by lobbying congressmen
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite By what metric do they do less? Also, how is not growing your own food somehow immoral?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 lets put it like this capitalists people who are owners of the means of production dont work cus they dont need to and if they do something it is to keep their fortune and just the same way u would not measure the troubles that any person goes through to balance his budget as work then u cannot count the efforts of a capitalist to keep his fortune as work. so since capitalist are the "boss" they dont work a set number of hours. in contrast a person from the third world
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That doesn't exactly add up: The vast majority of business owners (at least in the US) are small business owners, and they usually don't make much more than the national average for full time salaried workers, it's usually about $3,000 to $5,000 more a year, but that is really about it.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 im not talking about small businesses because in most of these the owner also works. the big problem i am talking about are the big banks, businesses and corporations the people who have the majority of the resources of the world in their hands
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@pittland44 works 19 hours a day for a miserable wage at sweatshops and they still live in poverty. also the last question i did not say that not growing my own food is immoral i said that capitalist dont lift a finger even to cook their own food as sort of a joke cus u know the avarge joe when not eating fast food well he has to cook clean and do all that stuff
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite People work in sweatshops not because they are forced to but because they are desperately poor. Working conditions get better as personal & investment capital increase in a society. Also, how exactly do you intend to eliminate all social hierarchies? Are all socioeconomic hierarchies even a bad thing?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 yes they are a bad thing because its like say racism it judges people and determines how much they are worth, it determines their fate and it gives them unequal access to the resources given to us by nature. and yes people work in sweatshops because they are poor but why are they poor? could it be that these first world countries and their big companies and colonization took everything from them
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So seniority, which is a hierarchy, is as irredeemably bad as racism? Scholastic achievement hierarchies, such as honor rolls, are just as bad as the hindu caste system?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 the problem with these hierarchies u mention such as scholastic achievement its that first of all the scholastic system is not efficient and needs to be re-thinked there are some good texts by michell foucault that give a good analysis of this. also the scholastic system is one based on competition which is why we live in a society where everyone seems to be in their own world and the sense of community seems to be lost. this is more apparent in the big cities than in small towns
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite I was reading about Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, they were turned on and attacked by their own allies, so that worked well. So let me get this straight, you go on about the natural world, but ignore the fact that organisms in the natural world compete constantly. Also, how do you get the best qualified individual without any type of open competition? Or do you favor a technocracy where all our career choices are made for us. Also, we can't all go back to small towns
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 yes the communist turned on the anarchists it happens that is why there is tensions between both cause one is authoritarian and the other is liberal.organisms compete but not with theyre own species as mutual aid is necessary to survive if humans did not help each other and we would have been competing in prehistoric times we would have been extinct. the best qualified individual thing is complicated because in anarchism labor division and educational system would be reformed
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite I'm sorry, but organisms of the same species do compete with each other, all the time. From penguins jockeying for the best nesting spot, to rams butting heads to lions fighting over who eats first animals of the same species, even same flock, herd, or pride, compete with each other all the time.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 there is a biology book by peter kropotkin called Mutual Aid:A Factor of Evolution u should check it out. competition is to only happen as a defense mechanism which is necessary because of their not being enough resources for everyone in a given environment,however in these modern times of mass production where there is clearly enough for everyone as the rich have about 80% of the worlds resources to their hands,competition is not necessary,and mutual aid is more important to survive
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite If competition is a bad thing then why is it socialist societies were and are the ones experiencing things such as famines & shortages, the Soviet Union and China pre 1990 show this dynamic over and over again. You talk of mass production and prosperity, but it is free markets, not socialism, which give us such things.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 and anarchism promotes the free market, the difference with laissez faire is that the markets are not privately owned by capitalist, but collectively owned by the workers
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite the neurotic producerism, the third world camp following, the anarchistic streak, the rampant corporatism, the quest to create a "natural" community, the opposition to free markets, the constant demands for a more democratic democracy, the antiwestern bent. Hmmm, where have I heard all of these before?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 i must keep on reminding u that anarchism supports the free market, the only difference in terms of market economics between anarchism and laissez faire is property rights and the non-hierarchy(except for guidance as a doctor need to guide the nurses and the experts help the less experienced) in the company,coorporation or bussiness.(a problem with capitalism is that in many markets the people who are on top on many ocassions contribute nothing to the work and have little experience)
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite On some occasions that does happen, but if everything is running right those people usually fail. However, there are cases where people who aren't experts actually do know what they are talking about. Case in point, Bill Gates. The guy is a college dropout, and yet he started microsoft and profited off one simple idea; nonproprietary software coding.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Also, how is free economic association with people compensating eachother for goods and services not mutual aid? Or should everyone have to work for free? You do realize the classic trope "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" discourages hard work and innovation, it's also an invitation to state sanctioned slavery.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 i do not support the" to each according to his need" thing(tough i think it is very noble but also utopic) in that i disagree with kropotkin and anarco-communism, however mikhail bakunin and anarco-colectivism supports "to each according to his contribution" i am more on that page something that is way better than the "to each according to his luck and privilege" which sums up the way it works in capitalism
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Have you ever seen a movie called "enemy at the gates?" It's about the battle of Stalingrad, in it two friends are talking, a sniper & a political officer. the political officer talks of the soviet union: We fought so hard to create a world without rich & poor, but in the end man is still man. There will always be rich & poor. those rich in gifts, those poor in gifts, rich in love, poor in love. There is more but that is the main thrust of it, and the problem with all socialism.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite But wait, you yourself said that as an anarchist your basic belief system was nearly identical to the communist program. Why then would communists fight their own? Would not mutual aid make more sense, where is that great confluence of direct democracy you spoke of?
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite If your narrative is correct, then how come life expectancy in Africa has gone down since the Europeans left, or median income, educational attainment, or one of a dozen other metrics. The same is true in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Also, what about western organizations, such as missionary groups and aid societies, which send money and resources to third world countries to help people there?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 the problem with those statistics is this. if you live in a garden where u have all your basic needs and then some people go to that garden and take all they want , and then they leave will your life expectancy be the same?? also note that in colonies where europeans lived (except the ones who have been divided in struggles for political power)the quality of life was worse for the native as europeans got all the better jobs and resources and many natives were discriminated
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite The real reason those people are poor is that they don't have enough economic development to raise demand for labor, thus there is a surplus of labor which results in a low price for labor (ie wages) which means that they can't get a good price for the work they do. The next factor is that a lot of those countries are usually resource rich but haven't developed any but one or two industries based on those resources. In economic terms they are called single commodity economies.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 that is a myth, do you think the mayans , the aztecs were poor? do you think that arab countries in the middle east were poor before europeans and jews came to colonize? being rich does not mean having a mcdonalds and large buildings. being rich means having more than enough natural resources to get by. these people lived in perfect harmony with nature then the europeans came and took everything and sunk them into poverty, demand for labor will always exist because all people have
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Before the discovery of oil in the region the middle east was one of the poorest, least educated, most underdeveloped areas on the globe. Oil has made a lot of those countries.
pittland44 1 year ago
yes pre-colonial middle east was uneducated and underdeveloped --_____--, with all the contributions they made to mathematics, the great arabian kingdoms, some of the philosophers in the renaissance took ideas from those of the middle east for the development of science as we know it today as most of the knowledge that we take from greeks and other ancient civilizations were preserved by arabs and it was not available in europe in the dark ages also many words u use like ALGEBRA come from arabs
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Indeed algebra does come to us from the arabs, as does things like fractions and zero. However, have you read about the middle east during the 16th through the 19th century? Mass decline in population, literacy rates of less than 5%, tribal & sectarian violence. Also, weren't the great arab kingdoms empires as well? Weren't the advances you spoke of made possible by their own version of imperialism, made possible by their conquests of older greek, roman & byzantine territories?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 yes, but the point i made was not to say if the arabs were imperialist or not my point was to show how the arabs were not poor in pre-colonial times and that all of their modern misfortunes are a product of european and jewish colonization. i don not justify arab imperialism nor do i think 2 wrongs make a right
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite actually, by the time the europeans showed up iranosemitic culture had stagnated. During the caliphates they were some of the most advanced cultures in the world, by the 19th century they had fallen apart. There are several reasons for this. The first is bad taxation and currency practices of the ottoman empire. Another is a failure to establish anything resembling seperation of powers (there are reems of commentary on these practices alone).
Also, much of their current dysfunction
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite comes from certain archaic cultural practices. Such as the discrimination against women, to the point where they will mutilate them for "immoral" practices, such as getting raped, and polygamy, which causes a whole host of social problems. Also, how are the Israelis a problem? Israel is the size of New Jersey, and the Arab citizens of Israel were the only arabs in the middle east who could vote until 2003?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 i agree with you that arab culture mostly because of their religious practices is a big problem however this does not justify colonization and the stealing of resources by europeans. jews are a problem because they oppress muslims economically they buy land make monopolies and take resources in the middle east. there are also numerous accounts of violence by the israeli army towards the muslim people
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Okay, let's get something straight, if you buy something, you buy definition are not stealing it. If the US buys oil from Kuwait, then we aren't stealing anything. Also, what about arab moslem terrorism towards israeli citizens? Or are you going to repeat that thuroughly fascist trope that third worlders are always in the right? Also, I disagree that Islam itself is entirely, becuase if you go to other (nonarab) moslem countries (malaysia, albania) they don't have those same problems
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 you realize that beginning the 20th century the us would bribe governments in the middle east by giving them military aid to give rise to their tyrannies and example of this is the shah in iran and saddam hussein. and about muslim terrorism this does not come from nothing muslim terrorism comes as a reaction from all the years of colonial and economic oppression which i do not justify cus 2 wrongs dont make a right but i understand why they do it
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite The Shah of Iran & Hussein occured much later. But to be fair the US under Woodrow Wilson did far more of that type of thing in places like central & south america, however, wilson was also an ardent socialist. Also, didn't the Soviet Union do the same thing in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 i am as much against state communism as i am against captalism and state communism in instances is even worse than capitalism, the soviet union was just as bad as the usa
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Let me ask you a question, do you think people are innately good or innately bad?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 no i dont think people are innately good or innately bad, i think the way we organize ourself the culture, and all represive mechanism perpetuated by the superego to justify the pursuit of desires of the id of the elite and the normalization of this processes determine our conduct. i do not think "bad people are bad" In their minds some think they are doing the right thing however if by ignorance and misinformation that good harms more than it does good then things must be set right
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So, you're a Freudian. That actually answers a lot of questions.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 well i think psychoanalysis is is worthy of more credit than behaviorism because it deals and fulfills the gaps that many schools of psychology such as behaviorism has left in its arrogant effort to fit in into that classical useless scientific paradigm ,it is highly empirical and based on appearances and it lacks theoretical concepts that explains those phenomena apparent to our senses
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite The problem with Freudian psychology is that it is full of Freuds own personal perversions and a lot of strange transferance from freud to his patients. Like the whole point where he says all taboos are the result of people repressing desire. A lot of taboos are because realized doing certain acts leads to problems, like inbreeding, which freud stated societal aversion of was a sign of intense desire to do so, rather than it causes genetic problems.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Also, how is the scientific method and the arrangment of theories useless? Also, if you want to get into it, freudian thinking is so contrary to so many ideas that it is almost unscientific, and quite frankly most psychologists and psychiatrists are starting to move away from it because it is blatently wrong in certain assumptions and assertions and is obviously the product of perverse mind.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 psychoanalytical psychology cannot be reduced to freud just as the same way behaviorism cannot be reduced to watson there there are other proponents of psychoanalytical psychology like jacques lacan i do not view or follow freud as having the last word on psychology but i think psychoanalysis in contrast with behaviorism is not a ideology but a science as it provides theories to explain the causes of events and it doesnt just describe the relation of the events like in behaviorism
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Psychoanalysis (nor any other scientific subset or discipline) cannot prove anything, science is deductive, not inductive, it is the elimination of possibility, not the affirmation. Sorry, it just really bugs me when people say "prove" unless your talking mathematics or law.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 actually tough science portrays itself as deductive it is inductive because to get theories and laws from which you can engage in the process of deduction you need to make some observations and make inductions from these observations. this is not me making this up read up alan chalmers. there is a discipline called epistemology which goes through this and how science is not objective in much detail another good author is thomas s. kuhn
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Right, I've heard the arguments that science is not objective, I would ammend it to say that science when done right is objective, but most scientists are not.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 also behaviorism is very limited to stimulus-response, as if that was all center of that which we can call the mind(it does not take into account the existence of the unconscious), a failure of behaviorism is that it treats stimulus as natural when most of the social and cultural circumstances that lead us to react or behave in a certain way are unnatural and created by the structures of power. could behaviorism be a tool to force(condition) us to adapt to such structures? maybe...
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@pittland44 u know, another problem i have with capitalism is that it reduces every aspect of life to the market. u said some countries are poor because of because of lack of economic development and single commodity economies,that got me thinking, and i wonder does the basic necessities of life need to be reduced to the exchange of goods system we call a market is it fair that people starve and die just because they cant exchange goods and the resources to produce their own were raped from them
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Technically capitalism doesn't do that, economists do that, but laissez faire doesn't. Keep in mind that is what economists are paid to do, just a chemists are paid to break everything down into a chemical frame or reference, or physicists, etc.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite A lot of places are extremely resource rich, and it is not do to the actions of whites past or present, but rather interal strife, that holds them back. Look at Zimbabwe, before Mugabe took power the country had one of the richest farming economies in the world. They were known as the bread basket of Africa. Then Robert took power, and promising a fair dispersal of land to the people who worked it (sound familiar), proceeded to "redistribute" the land for "fair use" and ruin theland
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Also, there is a lot of research coming out that shows that foreign aid doesn't really work. The reason is that people don't stand on their own and it allows corrupt governments to be big sugar daddies, as well as a host of other problems.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 the auto-gestion principal of anarchy encourages people and communities to be responsible for themselves and thus agreeing with u and such research they point to the fact that government aid or foreign aid is not helpful and it is usually a tool to bribe people into the justification of slavery
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite The other problem is a lot of foreign aid allows corrupt governments to remain in power, because they can use it to pay people off. Robert Mugabe & the PLO are great examples of that.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite About islamic terrorism, if it is a response to colonialism, a dubious proposition at best, why then are Syrians & Egyptians attacking the US? As opposed to France & Britain, which actually did colonize those places. Also, why are the US & Israel always the villians? You realize how fascistic (and even nazistic) that is right?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 there is also terrorism in europe more than in america, the focus on the violence today against the usa is that it is the major proponent of capitalism and almost all of the world's economic activity revolves around wall-street, also usa is the major agent of globalization and neo-liberalism. the other thing is who is responsible for the recent war in the middle east? usa, self defence is not fascistic try being an arab in iraq or iran for a week and ull understand
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So, wanting to trade with people is evil? Also, the Iraqis are happy we came, they want us out now, which is understandable, but the majority of the country is happy we overthrew saddam, particularly the Kurds in the north & Shiites in the south, as well as other fringe groups. Also, the Iranians aren't Arabs (and don't call them that cause they really really take offense at that). Was the Shah a dictator, hell yes. Was he way better than the mullahs? Oh hell yeah.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 neither the mullahs or the Shah or saddam , also have in mind the us did nothing good getting rid of saddam cause they are the ones who made his rule possible in the first place and supported his regime while the cold war was active
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So, removing the problem that the US caused is not a good thing? Is this US even capable of doing good in your eyes? Or is it objectively evil?
pittland44 1 year ago
Comment removed
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@pittland44 it is a good thing but it does not give them merit or puts them in the good guy position if you kill someone and then hypothetically revive them its as if you had done nothing. and in this case worse yet because the usa cant bring back all of the lives and repay the misery that tyrannical regimes such as those of the shah and saddam caused the people of the middle east
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So we can never atone for our sins, real imagined, individual or collective, is that what you are saying?
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So the fact that the Nazis, empire of the rising sun and saddam are all gone and that south korea, nicaragua, greece, germany, japan, thailand, and kuwait are all independent countries that are free to go their own way means nothing? Our screw ups forever damn us?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 is not that screw ups forever damn its just that the usa keeps screwing up and that whenever they fix their screw ups its for hidden interests or to "not look bad" like when they stopped supporting rafael trujillo in the dominican republic even tough they were good allies before and how they allied the soviets to fight the nazis then went against them or how they allied the middle east to fight the soviests even trained terrorists like al-qaeda and when the ussr fell,u know the story
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That type of thing is not new, look at the dynastic wars in europe. If you want to get into it the British were responsible for the rise of Prussia and the French were responsible for the rise of Piedmont, the two kingdoms united germany & italy respectively which directly led to WWI. The fact is these things happen. Today's ally is tommorows enemy.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 yes todays ally is tommorows enemy but never has this happened so frequently and in such a hypocrite manner as with the united states of america
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite I'm sorry, but that is not correct. Again, getting back to the dynastic wars, they switched partners about every 10 years.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 yeah but still, that this was done on dynastic wars does not justify that anyone be it the us or any other country go around starting wars as modern wars do not serve the interests of the people but the interests of the governments and the elite and they treat people for their wars like pawns in chess
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite See your problem is that you keep trying to make the US out to be this evil superpower, it's not. It is far more benign than any other superpower, and has done much to alleviate suffering and tyranny. Now we've made our mistakes sure, plenty of them, but we at least try to correct them, which is more than can be said for others such as the Russians & Chinese. Also, how are modern or ancient wars any different. People & nations fight, that's all there is to it.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 some ancient wars were more related to the interests of the people and not just their leaders by modern i mean most of western history since about the great roman empire
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Like what, give me an example?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 an example is greek wars with persians sure on the persian side it was for the leaders interest but on the greek side it was something the people choose democratically because it served their interest another example were wars between vikings and war between indian tribes. more modern examples include anarchist guerrillas like the ezln,the spanish during the civil war are another example. another example is the battle for independence in the united states
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Only Athens was a democracy, and even they had Pericles. Also, the Indians would actually appoint a dictator to lead the war effort, they called them war chiefs, some good examples are Tecumseh, Osceola & Geronimo, all were excellent leaders, and fantastic tacticians, but they were not "elected." Also, what struggle in the US are you speaking of?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 yes they had war chiefs but the war chiefs did not start the war the wars were started for the interests of the tribes not like today where if a president wants to go to war and all of the country is basically against it the war still goes.the struggle in the us that i mentioned was the war in the us i am speaking of is the american revolution 1775
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That is why the senate & congress have to vote on going to war. The president cannot declare war, he can't even declare a police action. Technically speaking the US hasn't been at war since world war 2. All they have been is police actions, which is actually worse.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 the senate and congress do not represent the interests of the whole people you cant have things like the war in iraq going down when clearly the american people are against it
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Yeah but according to you all representative bodies are illegitmate (how Rousseauian of you). No representative body is ever going to represent everyone (nor should they). Also, most Americans were for the war(72%), and most of us do want to win it(59%).
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 that is why representative bodies should not exist and we should have direct democracy. i am really skeptical of those 72% for the war numbers i must request of you were did you get that information from and what are your sources? many statistics are manipulated and dont take account many people that do not wish to participate. remember you have academic peer reviewed sociological statistics and then u have bullshit fox news, cnn, new york times, propaganda statistics
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Here's a problem. Anyone who get's "unearned" income is a capitalist (your definition, not mine) so anyone who has a savings account, lends out any amount of money for repayment, or owns any types of stocks/bonds/securities/derivatives is automatically a capitalist. So, people who own stock in the company they work in immediately become those capitalist parasites right?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 yes he is a capitalist parasite because money earned from stocks is not money earned by ones contribution to the process of production the money he earns for the work he does in the company is ok the money he earns from stock is not
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That's garbage. If you invest money maybe you aren't involved, but you gave the company money to use to start up, expand, create new products, etc. There is nothing parasitic about it. How else can people increase their earning power than by investing money? How do new businesses get startup funds? How do you add new products or hire new people?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 the problem with your economic rhetoric is that ur making points playing by the rules of the system.first of all these people have money to give to companies because of privilege they do not contribute anything as money is only important because of the system but in an objective position what is important is the labor not the buying of labor. cause these people give money sure but what is the money used on? to take advantage of others people lack of resources to bribe them into labor
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That's simply not correct. Now money is only valuable as a unit of exchange, but that is precisely what gives it it's value. So, hiring someone to perform a particular set of duties based on a skill set is bribery? Wrong, it's called paying someone to do a job. It is not bribery. Also, saying your position is objective is a lie. Labor, does not have a set value, as different types of labor exist in different quantities and have different demands.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That is why a doctor costs more than a waiter. Now no product has a set value at an given time, because price fluctuates. What does privilege have to do with anything? If people choose to invest money they have saved up by their hard work, then that is their business. Should they have it taken away from them and given to others who are deemed "more deserving" cause that would be stealing. Again, how is hiring someone for a job bad?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 hiring itself is bad. hiring should not exist it should not be i hire you to work for me, but rather it should be i invite you to work with me. hiring is bribery because if you are in a position to hire is because you have an unjust advantage in the access of resources.i never said labor had a set value i said labor was the real contribution and money is not.its really hard these days to become rich just by hard work it has more to do with luck thats why its privilege it is not fair
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Hiring is paying a person to do a particular job. How do people have an unjust access to resources, if you pay for it, it's yours. Labor itself is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. Ideas, such as blueprints, chemical formulas, business strategies, etc. all have value. As do materials, such a ore, lumber, cotton, wheat, etc. Labor is only one piece, and quite frankly, money has more value than labor because it can buy more and is more versatile. That is why labor theory fails
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 people have unjust access to resources because a few elite have more resources at their hands than the majority and many of the first capitalist were already people with money who got control of the means of production by privilege and or luck. ideas are a form of intellectual and creative labor and materials are resources so no matter how many times you go around it will always come down to the exchange of labor for resources and vice versa
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So things like savings, wise investment, being smart with your money, leaving an inheritance to your descendants, good values, intelligence, cunning, leadership skills, creativity all of that is unjust and immoral.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 savings, wise investment, being smart with money and inheritance is unjust because theyr are fake values that emphasize on the survival through the adaptation of the capitalist system. adopting such values makes you 1)conform to the unjust immoral system 2) support its existence
good values? define good values?
intelligence is valuable, leadership skills imply superiority so its off the map for me however i support experienced guidance.creativity is very important and valuable also
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Seriously? You don't know what good values are? Good values are values that promote success over failure, lead to well being (both materially and spiritually). For example, valueing hard work over idelness. Monogamy over promiscuity, courage over cowardice, virtue over vice, frugality over foolishness. Good values are values that promote the well being of a person by making a judgment of one way of doing things over another and assigning a value to those distinctions basedon outcome
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite How is saving money immoral? How is investing money wisely immoral? You keep saying laissez faire is immoral but you don't have a concrete reason. Other than some people do better than others for various reasons. That gives us a clue to what you mean by equality is equality of outcome, which has never happened and will never happen.
Leadership is off the map for you only because your ideology rejects the idea of leadership and the difference between good and bad leaders.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That rejection of all leadership and authority (including moral) plus the rejection of discrimination leads you to say things like having a job and being a slave are the same thing, that representative government and totalitarianism are one in the same, and that all economic success must be the result of exploitation and injustice, because one method cannot be better than another.
pittland44 1 year ago 2
@DanteWhite Some people are better at some things than others. My best friend is a vastly better cook than I am, but I kick his butt at mathematics. He's better at black jack, but I'm dynamite at paigow. He can run a 6:00 mile, and but I can bench 190lbs. can you make us equal in those respects? Leadership ability (both natural & learned) is not evenly distributed throughout the population. So, unless you're willing to reject other qualities (intelligence & imagination, both of which are not
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite evenly distributed than you have to accept that some people are naturally better leaders than other. Your's is the problem of all levelers.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Now stealing is parasitic, living off welfare is parasitic, collecting dividends & interest is not.
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Let's take a step back for a second. In 5-10 points please define your personal position. Also, you didn't actually respond to my points about either economics or biology.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 regarding economics i cannot enter in much details as the economic inner workings of communism,capitalism,and anarchism are different involving different concepts and mechanisms. my point in economics is that capitalism has failed just by looking at the world we live in u would know, and it is a reality that big capitalist corporations exploit. so all the economic theory made to justify captalism leads to error if such system has had petty results on our species and eviroment.
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite How has Laissez Faire failed? If anything socialism, whether total or partial, has failed and is failing right now, the economic distress in the US, the collapse of the EU and the euro, China's rejection of socialist economic policy, it all points to one thing. Socialism does not work, never has outside of small voluntary communes, like the kibbutz in Israel, which you probably hate.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 state-socialism has failed not anarco-colectivism or libertarian socialism. both capitalism and marxism have been responsible for all the inequality and negation of liberty in the world. all anarchist societies have been successful but then come the capitalist or marxists with their police and military and ruin everything
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Why? because you can't have anything resembling a military or police force in an anarchistic system, it goes against the basic premise, as do things like law, courts etc.. There is also the little problem that most self proclaimed anarchists are themselves destructive, dedicated to "tearing down the system" without ever thinking that it may serve a purpose.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 what do u mean by tearing down the system might serve a purpose? i do agree that anarchism is deficient in proposing institutions for defense such as guerrillas which was one of the problems with the spanish anarchists they did not build up a good defense system to protect themselves from enemies however modern anarchist movements such as the EZLN have been working on this issue and so will many anarchists (as anarchism is not dogma)will learn from their past mistakes and improve
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Anarchism is deficient for a lot of things, such as civic maintenance, utilities, roads, etc. The problem with anarchy is that there is neither government nor even civil society, much less any kind of social contract. Also, I said the system has a purpose, not tearing it down. Most of the time that is just mindless destruction.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 social contract exists in anarchism via direct democracy and civic maintenance,utilities, and roads can be managed by worker owned private corporations
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite How is a shareholder held company different than a "worker" held company?
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 that shareholders do not contribute to the process of production therefore they do not know what it takes to keep things running in terms of labor and a worker held company can take decisions based on the need of the workers and the process of production and since workers are the majority of the community it also helps the company take decisions for the benefit of the community since it knows the needs of it
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite If that theory worked then United Airlines would be the most efficient company in the world, because it is employee owned. Also, the needs of the workers are only one piece of the needs of a company. The failure of many employee held companies is that the employees bleed the company when it cannot afford to meet their demands.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 some problems with many employee owned non profit companies is that they face competition from monopolizing companies which( agreeing with some laissez faire theory) use the government to regulate the markets to assure the position of these big monopolies and most of these companies are usually privately owned and the owners go around lobbying congressmen funding their campaigns in a exchange for legislation that serves their interest.now how can you compete with that!?
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite There are good employee owned companies, or part owned, but they are usually small or midsized firms. A good example is Dawn soap, which is 20% employee controlled (approximate).
One thing I do hate about a lot of businesses is how a lot of companies will hire outsiders for managerial positions ahead of existing employees. Office Depot did that (I worked there for a year) and it made me so mad. They would listen to any idiot outside the company but not their own people.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 going off topic,i would like to say that i have found this conversation awesome and that u cant have interesting debates like these with anyone i really appreciate the time that had been put to this,and i recognize u as being really smart more than the 90% fools lurking around youtube,tough our opinions contrast i find many of your points valid and i do not hold any grudge against u or anything like that,but i wanted to point out that me being a punk does not make me fall on idiocy
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Thanks, that means a lot. Now I realize you are not an idiot, but I'm sorry, a large chunk of your fellow travelers are.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 fellow travelers????? sorry english is not my native language so im not good at figuring out slang terms
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite People who believe the same as you. That is what a fellow traveler is.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 other punks ? or other anarchists? ive met dumb anarchists and smart ones as with everything for example u have "anarchists" like the protagonist from this movie and then you have ones like noam chomsky
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Noam Chomsky is really not high on my list of people. The guy is terrorist coddling garbage.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 independently of what you may think of chomsky u must admit the guy is really smart not just for his political work but for his contributions to linguistics and psychology.besides terrorists cannot be judged so subjectively sure it is wrong what they do but it is a product of certain cultural social and economic circumstances and if the things that happened in the middle east happened in america as often im sure there would be a lot of terrorist, tough usa foreing policy is terrorist
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Okay, the US's foreign policy is not terrorism, that is just plain stupid. Hell, Roman foreign policy was not terrorism. Also, Chomsky is smart, there in is half the problem. Also, I've heard more fascistic/nazistic rhetoric from Chomsky than any other thinker than Peter Singer. The technocracy, rampant populism, third world camp following, festish for youth, it's all there in his beliefs.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 u cannot tell me that the atomic bombing of hiroshima was not terrorism? or that agent orange was not terrorism? or that the bombing in cuba was not terrorism? or that police going into black neighborhoods to harass the people was not terrorism? COINTELPRO was no terrorism?
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite No, Hiroshima & Nagasaki were legitimate, albeit horrifying, acts of war. The difference between war & terrorism is war is carried out by the recognized armies on behalf of a nation's government. Now is war awful and to generally be avoided, yes. But it is not the same as terrorism. Also, if we're going to get into the problems affecting blacks how about the fact that the most common cause of death amongst black people 18-24 is other black people? What about the ghetto chique that
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 hiroshima and nagasaki tough legitimate was not ethical and it was a tool used to put fear in a certain group so that they would surrender or give in to some set of demands it is no different than muslim terrorism so going by your logic the usa would be terrorist who operate on a terrorist supporting law that makes their terrorism legit.
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite The difference is the difference between the vietcong and the North Vietnamese army. The difference is the difference between the sturmabteiling and the wehrmacht, it is the difference between the weather underground. For example, as much as I may dislike Iran's revolutionary guard, they aren't a terrorist organization. They are a recognized, uniformed, authorized body. They fall under the geneva convention. Now you obviously can't tell the difference between warfare, but others can
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 be it as it is it still kills innocent people it is still for the benefit of the few i couldnt care less about the differences between warfare its all the same garbage no matter on its legitimacy which is a product of corrupt interests anyway
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite says crap like "fuck the police" or the black panthers setting buildings on fire and ambushing police & fire fighters when they responded? Now Bajia de las cochinas & annam/ da viet? Those were military actions undetaken to defend either this country or it's allies from their shared enemies.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 i agree with sayings like fuck the police they are perpetrators of brutality and use their badges as an excuse to manifest their sadistic desires( i am not talking about all cops but most of them) there is also some psychological details to be added into this.phillip zimbardo went into this with great detail on how power and authority corrupts and makes u a sadistic beast. that is why i agree with the anarchist tought of no gods no masters neither ruler nor slave and "fuck authority"
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite That is such a bunch of garbage I have no idea where to even begin with that. I really don't.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 it is not garbage its been scientifically researched look up the stanford prision experiment, look at this other documentary called 5 steps to tyranny and read some phillip zimbardo.the position of authority corrupts. why do you think communist regimes like the soviet union ended up like they did: the consent of their authoritative power, why do you think fascist governments and dictatorships have done the worst atrocities in modern history: the consent of their authoritative power
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@pittland44 the situaion with blacks is complicated because you have to remember that violence amongst black is a product of: first the introduction of drugs and its violent trade into black community via federal and government agencies, the encouraging of the illegal drug trade because of prohibition.second it is a product of the capitalism and the marketing of the gansta rap steriotype if such behaviour is prevalent it is because it has been advertised to blacks as something to want and be
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite No, the real source of violence amongst blacks is the breakdown of the nuclear family in black neighborhoods. If you factor out fatherlessness, the difference between black and white crime goes to zero.
pittland44 1 year ago
@pittland44 so u are saying that a household where there is a lesbian couple of two mothers they cannot raise their children well? do we even need fathers? let me tell you something i myself and a lot of people i know were brought up in broken homes and that does not make us violent criminals and also what makes u think that black parents are not responsible you cannot generalize like that and if there is a breakdown in the hood its because of the reasons i mentioned:drugs,stereotype capitalism
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite So, wait, aren't your reasons generalizations? Why are your reasons the only legitimate ones. If you have a child at sixteen (regardless of race) and have neither the means nor the maturity to properly raise them then you are being irresponsible. That is the definition of being irresponsible. Also, are all children from broken homes going to become criminals, of course not. But, they are more likely to, a lot more likely to. Children of single mothers account for 70% of the US
pittland44 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Prison population, regardless of race. They account for 86% of all children with behavioral disorders. They are 64% more likely to drop out of school, and 61% more likely to suffer from substance abuse problems. The fact is, Dads count. Children need a father, just as much as they need a mother, plain and simple.
pittland44 1 year ago