|
| Thread: Why I am far left |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted March 20, 2009 04:43 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker: it would be better if you would take the time to actually post what an aristocracy *is* or why he is wrong rather than make those (sarcastic, but not always) remarks on others.
For example: this. Nowhere does it say anything about "not being allowed to enter or leave" mvass, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about either. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 05:12 PM |
|
|
"Aristocracies have most often been hereditary plutocracies"
Yep.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 06:33 PM |
|
|
Mvass has been awarded a gargoyle of literacy for making JJ a bit more humble.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 06:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Aristocracies have most often been hereditary plutocracies"
Yep.
Death has OF COURSE managed to completely confuse the issue by linking to the GOVERNMENT form "aristocracy".
We are of course talking about the aristocracy as a CLASS - ot what form of government would you (both) make "blood aristocracy" as opposed to "money aristocracy"?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 07:02 PM |
|
|
Wikipedia has no amiguities regarding the word "aristocracy". That's what you get when you type it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 07:35 PM |
|
|
If either of you would bother and READ the 6 lines you get there instead of just linking to it, he'd read this:
Quote:
Aristocracy is a form of government, in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule. This may be a hereditary elite, or it may be by a system of cooption where a council of prominent citizens add leading soldiers, merchants, land owners, priests, and lawyers to their number. See Aristocracy (class)#History for the historical roots of the term.
I highlighted the interesting part for ease of recognition. You CAN click on that and, YES, you ARE routed to a somewhat more substantal article. Well, not ABOVE, but in wiki. In case you are too lazy to look click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy_(class)#History
Oh, and I'm not sorry for the sarcasm. I'm pretty sure it won't be recognized anyway.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 07:39 PM |
|
|
When you're not talking about the usual standard word, you have to specify. Such as in this case the "roots" of the aristocracy class. Simple language sense.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:00 PM |
|
|
"The French Revolution attacked aristocrats as people who had achieved their status by birth rather than by merit, and this was considered unjust. The term had become synonymous with people who claim luxuries and privileges as a birthright."
Yep.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
|
Actually my well-meaning advice to you is to just start with the habit of thinking a minute or two before you start typing, to be sure you really get the gist of the post you desire to add your half cent to. That might protect yourself and everyone else from you dropping in on everything that suggests itself to you like a spoilt brat. Just common sense.
Edit: This post is of course directed to TheDeath
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"The French Revolution attacked aristocrats as people who had achieved their status by birth rather than by merit, and this was considered unjust. The term had become synonymous with people who claim luxuries and privileges as a birthright."
Yep.
Righ. And since you are such a lefty, of course you sttack the "heir millionaires" who claim luxuries and privileges as a birthright as well, since they herited it like a title.
Don't you?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:30 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I guess. I do favor an inheritance tax, but even an inheritance tax only addresses the issue of wealth. What if a child's parents are more intelligent than average, and are able to better raise the child? Or what if they're just generally healthier and pass on better genes? Not much anyone can do about that.
But yes, I support an inheritance tax, because large inheritances conflict with equality of opportunity.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 09:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually my well-meaning advice to you is to just start with the habit of thinking a minute or two before you start typing, to be sure you really get the gist of the post you desire to add your half cent to. That might protect yourself and everyone else from you dropping in on everything that suggests itself to you like a spoilt brat. Just common sense.
Weren't we talking about aristocracy? I typed Aristocracy in wiki, since this is what it was about. But everytime that happens you seem to justify it with some obscure reason -- which in this context it was simply about the USAGE of the term aristocracy (i.e you do not use the one that is typically used; like I said, that's fine, IF you specify...).
The whole thing with "that wasn't the 'overall' point, start thinking more and stop picking on small comments, it makes it off-topic" is getting old and not really working... Ok, if it wasn't, why was it mentioned in the first place?
What is interesting though is that you think posts like this:Quote:
You mean, it was impossible to enter or leave aristocracy? Err... Umm... I really wonder what you kids learn in school nowadays or what kind of stuff they give you to read...
Wait, it's Paris, right? You are still confused about all the aristocratic leftovers there.
are that much better. They're a step below, try to avoid useless remarks, and by useless, I of course mean without any argument other than "that's just stupid" or "that's not how it is at all." and then a big period of course, not an explanation.
Also try to post more sources/references if you're lazy to type it, I heard it helps a lot more than opinions sometimes.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Berny-Mac
Promising
Legendary Hero
Lord Vader
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 10:32 PM |
|
|
let's make this simple
left= everyone should have the same amount of wealth and opportunity (civil equality isn't their strong point; they supported slavery back in the civil war and segregation in the early to mid 1900s)
right= you reap what you sow (hopefully you all understand what that means)
That means that the left is hard on the ones who either work the hardest or got a free ride, while the right let the successful succeed while the unsuccessful rot.
Therefore, both extremes are bad and the middle ground is what we really need. Equality, but not to the point of foolishness (like the Soviet Union). China has found out that the left extreme isn't working well, so they're adopting some right wing ideas such as capitalism. Now China is working better than before, though they are still very left-wing. Now i'm not saying that China is great or anything, but it is slowly heading in the right direction.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 11:08 PM |
|
|
Bernie-Mac:
Nope.
Left = fights restrictive government power
Right = embraces powerful government
That is the only definition that makes sense. Your definitions are flawed because they ignore the social dimension. For example, people who favor more government restrictions in the economy often favor legalized same-sex marriage, abortion, etc - and, confusingly, this viewpoint is bundled together as "Left". And the opposite view is "Right". And yet it doesn't make sense, because both favor more of some kinds of government control and less of others.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 11:15 PM |
|
Edited by Lexxan at 23:17, 20 Mar 2009.
|
I see left as Utopian, Idealistic, Equalizing, Altruistic, Naive and Chaotic, whereas I see Right as Down-to-Earth, Rational, Egocentric, Retributional, Strict and Lawfull. Either way has their Pro's and Con's, and there is no true, "good" way imo. (not even in the true Center).
I myself tend towards Right-Wing myself, at least Right-wing to Belgian standards. (which would translate as Central-Democratic in American terms). Left in Belgium is really, really left, with the Green Party being Utopian Crypto-comunists and the Socialist Party being an Idealistic Bastion of the Bourgois-Bohemiens (called BoBo's), which still would classify as lefter than the American Democrats. Rightwing matches the Republican, while Center matches Democrats.
Mvass, to Belgian terms you wouldn't even qualify as Left-wing. You would probably be Central-Left or maybe Left, but certainly not far left, I can guarantee you.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 11:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bernie-Mac:
Nope.
Left = fights restrictive government power
Right = embraces powerful government
That is the only definition that makes sense. Your definitions are flawed because they ignore the social dimension. For example, people who favor more government restrictions in the economy often favor legalized same-sex marriage, abortion, etc - and, confusingly, this viewpoint is bundled together as "Left". And the opposite view is "Right". And yet it doesn't make sense, because both favor more of some kinds of government control and less of others.
No it makes no sense at all.
You can be ridiculessy capitalist and sitll be against surveilance and be for same-sex marriage.
You damn Americans(lucky not all of you): Please learn the political scale, its not 2 dimensioned!
____________
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 11:43 PM |
|
|
Everyone has his/her own interpretation of Left/Right. There is no real, true definition. The whole discussion about what Left/Right really is, is pointless.
I'd rather have a debate of left-wing vs Right-wing about their ideologies (not to argue or discourage, but to enlighten and bring wisdom and insight to your debate partner) than about what left/right really is.
I mean, we don't need to pull a TheDeath on this one (="Define Left/right.")
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 12:43 AM |
|
|
Lexxan:
Yes, but I don't think you quite understood my two points in my first post. Namely, they are that:
1. Socialism and monarchism have many undeniable similarities.
2. The traditional left-right scale is heavily flawed.
del_diablo:
Quote:
You can be ridiculessy capitalist and sitll be against surveilance and be for same-sex marriage.
That's true, but it's usually far less common than being socialist and against surveillance, or being capitalist and for surveillance. Which is exactly why the one-dimensional model is flawed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 11:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Left = fights restrictive government power
Right = embraces powerful government
Not really.
The Left and the Right have nothing to do with how authoritarian the government is. Unless you'd call communists right-wing.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 21, 2009 02:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Unless you'd call communists right-wing.
If the definitions of left and right actually had their original definition - the definition that made sense - then Communists would certainly be right-wing.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
