Abolish Vanity

[Kulturkampf]

I think if vanity was destroyed much good would be done. It is the route of almost all waste.

Imagine if as people got richer they didn't feel the need for status symbols... As opposed to people owning four or five cars and giant homes, they would own practical cars and practical homes; the money that is invested in vain things like Ferraris would instead have been invested in simply superior advancements in cars.

Global warming would be less of an issue because people from the start would've been in competition to make the most fuel efficient vehicles for the practical reduction of cost. Luxury car brands would have been defined by the practicality of vehicle... They would have been racing for efficient alternatives to fuel the second that it became clear the damage was being done.

Furthermore, hundreds and thousands of years ago the mentality of our leaders would have been geared away from personal indulgence and towards collective advancement.

I think if we can personally erase vanity and make it more frequent for a person to be inclined towards practicality and modesty it'll be a better world.

Vanity is not one of those things that is clearly immoral as it does not do a real damage to anyone but indirectly I think it is a fundamentally destructive way to live your life that damages everything.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

oh God...

[kahljorn]

While we're at it let's abolish murder, theft, arson, insurance theft, drugs, criminals, rich people, poor people, people and also i want a billion dollars.

"Global warming would be less of an issue because people from the start would've been in competition to make the most fuel efficient vehicles for the practical reduction of cost."

lol.

[Shyandquietguy]

KultureKampf, it's me, your friend, let us play Halo 2, we shall discuss our friends later KultureKampf.

I do not wish to be a burden for this topic, but KultureKampf is hard to contact personally; as well his girlfriend asked me to do so since she feels neglected.

[Miss Modular]

*rimshot*

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

[mburbank]

abolish abolishing

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Vanity is not one of those things that is clearly immoral as it does not do a real damage to anyone but indirectly I think it is a fundamentally destructive way to live your life that damages everything.

Not always. Usually, but not always.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlach

The Status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The host demonstrates their wealth and prominence through giving away the resources gathered for the event, which in turn prominent participants reciprocate when they hold their own potlatches.

"LOOK AT ME! I GIVE AWAY A LOT OF STUFF! I'M IMPORTANT! I'M IMPORTANT! LOOK AT ME!

[Kulturkampf]

Christ spoke out against doing things to look good; that is why humility is a value. that is why abolishing vanity destroys those displays.

That's what I think haha

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

that is why abolishing vanity destroys those displays.

and it would destroy the society of those Indians by undermining their system of redistribution.

And what are your posts if not vanity? All you ever talk about is how great you and whatever pseudo-intellectual outlook you current ascribe are. The constant bragging about drinking, fighting, and all your other bullshit and how its all part of some strange warrior ethos is nothing but sheer vanity, vanity, vanity.

[Seven Force]

Vanity runs this country, do you hate America?

Kulturkampf more like Mien Kampf

[Esuohlim]

Kulturkampf your opinions sure are unpopular around here!

[Sleazeappeal]

A lovely sentiment. Unfortunately, not one that can be implemented in any social sense.

Morality is an inward battle where every man must play his own champion. And even if successful, evil cannot be eradicated, not entirely.

Only overcome.

Christ spoke out against doing things to look good; that is why humility is a value.

Well, suppose you do something simply for the sake that it is good, but you wind up looking good even though that wasn't your intention for doing so.

Would that then be an affront?

[Kulturkampf]

It wouldn't; Christ looked good but he only looked good because He became known for His actions; His goal was never to look good but to lead to God. If one is truly a great person and ends up receiving recognition it is not wrong unless the intent was to be like Oprah Winfrey.

My views are unpopular on this site... But... It's OK.

Mein Kampf? More like Mein Dicks.Hitler was a Socialist bastard and a racist to boot! I am a Capitalist and an anti-racist to boot!

OK?

"Let's all say German words are racist!"

[Sleazeappeal]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

It wouldn't; Christ looked good but he only looked good because He became known for His actions; His goal was never to look good but to lead to God.

Hitler was a Socialist bastard and a racist to boot!

Socialist, enh? No doubt you base that assumption on the fact that he called his party the "National Socialist" party.

You insinuate in your first quote that one should be known for their actions. Let's review the actions of Hitler's party.

The National Socialist party operated on fascism, and fascism is based on a philosophy that the needs of the individual and social matters were less important than the needs of the state and its leaders.

True socialism, on the other hand, is based entirely on the philosophy that government exists to serve the needs of the populace.

Saying Nazis were socialists because they used the word in their name is like saying Republicans are communists because the U.S.S.R. stood for the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

Judge upon actions, not names.

[MLE]

Hey ninja smurf, I have a big secret for you. No one pays attention to this guy.

[Dr. Boogie]

Oh, don't listen to that negative nelly, sleazy. She's just part of that minority that thinks it's impossible to completely eliminate concepts from human society. Not true. Just look at the War on Terror, for example.

[Kulturkampf]

Adolf Hitler gave a carte blanche to Socialist economist Schacht to run his economy. He also abolished private schools and for the first time the rich and poor went to the same schools. He taxed the living crap out of things he didn't like (alcohol and cigarettes). He created massive bureaucracies for the workers and even had speical workers unions that fell under his party to empower the workers.

RIDDLE ME THIS

How do 'planned economy, giant publicly funded organs for workers and no private schools" not end up being socialism?

[Sleazeappeal]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

How do 'planned economy, giant publicly funded organs for workers and no private schools" not end up being socialism?

It's true, fascism borrows certain practices from socialism, but as I stated before, it is a matter of intent and money-flow. These programs were designed and operated to serve the interest of the state and of the corporations which funded them, to provide them with a steady supply of indoctrinated loyalists.

True socialism is more cyclical in nature. Rather than having programs funded and designed to serve the government's corporate sponsors, they are funded by the citizenry itself for the sake of its own benefit.

I am not lauding either, as they both have their faults. I'm just trying to elucidate the differences between the two.

[Jeanette X]

What the fuck?! I thought we were talking about vanity here.

[Dr. Boogie]

Sleazy was kind enough to give KK an "out", and perhaps realizing the absurdity of what he was proposing, KK jumped at the opportunity to switch gears and discuss Hitler's politcal stance.

[Kulturkampf]

Dr. Boogie's commentary is similar to hearing Korean broadcasters commentate on Koreans in K1. Even moments where the Korean is being clearly subdued there is some hint that it is all a giant ploy and the comeback is right there.

Sleazy, what is the difference between running an economy for the state and running an economy for the people? Particularly when the state's only goal is fulfilling the interests of the people.

In the 12 years of Nazi Germany 6 were in all out war, others were preparing for a conflict viewed as inevitable. Naturally, the State was interested in a robust economy and their Wehrmacht. To pretend that Nazi Germany and the fascists were doing it out of some selfish way is a gross error.

Fascism is basically militant socialism with authoritarianism. To say it is not socialist would be factually wrong.

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Dr. Boogie's commentary is similar to hearing Korean broadcasters commentate on Koreans in K1. Even moments where the Korean is being clearly subdued there is some hint that it is all a giant ploy and the comeback is right there.

Honestly, what are you saying here? Both people in your analogy, broadcaster and the other one, are Korean, and yet you say that "the Korean is being clearly subdued". Is the commentator somehow weakening the commentate-ee with his commentating? If so, am I the broadcaster, subduing but about to be on the receiving end of a comback? Or am I the commentate-ee, pretending to be hurt by mere words, but only to build dramatic tension as though this were some sort of dramatic radio serial?

Of course, that's just one way to take your analogy. Another way to take it, and the one that seems more likely, is that you're saying you have no idea what I'm talking about, just as you don't understand the two Koreans in your analogy because you don't speak Korean. I know you haven't said either way, but you strike me as someone who could live in a place for years and not learn any of the local language beyond "one more for the road."


I guess the main bullet point in this post is that you suck at analogies. And writing.

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

I know you haven't said either way, but you strike me as someone who could live in a place for years and not learn any of the local language beyond "one more for the road."

Man, what a line.

[george]

what king of retarded idea is abolishing an emotion anyway? vanity is just a word to describe a certain type of behavior, one that every human being feels from time to time.

as for the Nazis, they only called themselves socialists to steal votes from the Socialist party that already existed. hitler was sneaky and smart, but the Nazis were doomed from the start. oddly, the term carpet muncher was created as a joke about hitler by his inner circle cause he used to have fits and get down on the floor and chew the carpet. read "the rise and fall of the third reich" it is the most interesting book on WW2 that i have found.

[Sleazeappeal]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Sleazy, what is the difference between running an economy for the state and running an economy for the people? Particularly when the state's only goal is fulfilling the interests of the people.

You just answered your own question. If we're using Nazi Germany as an example, they were not motivated to fulfill the interests of the public at large, but the corporate sponsors who helped place them in power, particularly those that specialized in wartime industry.

In the 12 years of Nazi Germany 6 were in all out war, others were preparing for a conflict viewed as inevitable. Naturally, the State was interested in a robust economy and their Wehrmacht. To pretend that Nazi Germany and the fascists were doing it out of some selfish way is a gross error.

Again, you've contradicted yourself. The process of focusing the economy to further the Wermacht was designed to benefit the war-profiteering corporations that helped place the Nazi elite in power, not the general public.

Fascism is basically militant socialism with authoritarianism. To say it is not socialist would be factually wrong.

I already said that fascism borrows elements of socialism, it just isn't true socialism.