Why be right?

[Vibecrewangel]

I just have to say

Ror

and

Italian

[Bennett]

You've got some truly brilliant stuff here, I must admit:

"The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy. I realize this concept is kind of obscure in American historty, but a few of us are privy to such arcane knowledge. "

Oh yes, how silly of me, rather than write a letter to my local government saying how I think the double taxation they're trying to put on my local cable bill is wrong, I should just grab my musket and take over the state capitol. Or maybe I should just break off and form my own country because I disagree with the death penalty in my state. Wow. How could I have forgotten about the good ole revolution clause?

"Seeing a few dollars directed into government projects you disagree with is not so great a concern that anyone is truly a victim as a result. "

Which I agree with, but I don't think that other people would agree.

"No. I pay my taxes because it is a civic responsibility, and I trust the powers that be to make use of those assets as they see fit, as they are in a better position to to make those decisions than many citizens are. We as a society grant them that power because we realize that they are better informed than we are, in theory, and thus tend to respect their decisions. Granted, they are everybit as prone to judgements of error as we are, but because of their occupation, it is far less likely. "

"...its not like a tax has ever been passed which the public did not see coming. The system is very concise, you can follow a bill's procession all the way to becoming a law, on television and online. You can agree with it, or disagree, but the system is not unfair. If you don't like a bill, get together a petition. Write some letters. Phone your senator. There are steps which can be taken, steps which are taken, by those with a very un-victim like mindset. "

So you honestly believe that as long as our government passes a specific bill, then it must be right. Or, if it isn't, and we've wrote letters, protested, signed petitions etc., then, well, I guess we have to revolt, right?

"How many took heated offense to your White Supremacist comparison and theory of victimized motivation for right wing thinking? "

people took offense to the comparison because they came to a conclusion that was irrelevant to the original comparison. I'll write it out, and this is not meant to be symbolic logic so a preemptive strike on comments about that.
Group A comes to conclusion 1 using method Z.
Group B comes to conclusion 2 using method Z.
Group A and B use method Z.
Not Group A and B come to conclusion 1.
Not Group A equals Group B.

If you want to take offense to the issue at hand, that's fine. I said it myself, that I believe there are liberals who use the same mindset in a different manner.

"So we have self-percieved victims who don't see themselves as victims. Is this the latest breakthrough in your brilliant theory? "

Yes I do believe that there are times when a person may not be totally aware of the circumstances that form their persona. I believe that there are times when we don't fully understand why we make the decisions we do or why we take a certain stance. Can you honestly trace back every influence that turned you into the being you are today? You've already come to the conclusion that I was thrown onto my head as a child, only by what you've read. Can you give me the end-all definition of "self?" Sorry if the idea of subconcious influence is too much of a stretch

Also, I think you're definition of a 'victim' or 'un-victim' like things are a little narrow. Just because someone is a victim of something doesn't mean that they cannot do something to try and remedy the situation. You call these un-victim like things, but a person can use the fact that they were(or they believed they were) wronged as motivation for their views and actions.

[HitlerWasReich]

Roosevelt's policies may have actually hurt the US more than helped, many economists argue over it.
Pub lover
"Also, in Europe, there hasn't been a major recession at any time there has been a majority of socialist governments."
Holding up Europe as an example is a poor choice. The U.S. grows faster economically and our standard of living keeps increasing while their's is flat. Germany and France are experiencing massive depressions as we speak. They are trying to retool their social security programs which caused a massive protest recently, huge numbers of people simply walked off the job.
So their programs which are highly socialistic aren't working. OR did you mean when most governments in the area were socialist? Which would be what? 10 days in the 1900s? Or are you referring to Eastern Europe under the USSR, we all know how great that system was.

" Europe were then on course to have emerged from the recession before the US if it hadn't been for the wars." and if puppy dogs were moonpies no one would go hungry. Nice "what if" with no real data. The Great depression was partly caused by this cycle: Germany pays reparations to UK and France; who then pay back the US for WWI; who then loan the money back to Germany who pays back.....
One day Germany decides to keep the money for internal improvements and bam massive defaults on loans, hardly caused by the US.

[The_Rorschach]

Actually, Hitler is right on here. Roosevelt's socialist dickering adversely affected the US, it did not aide us at all. It was a superificial recovery which actually created variables that, had it not been for WW 2, would have been the economic ruin of the United States. I won't go on, because mostly, thats been explained above.

"Oh yes, how silly of me, rather than write a letter to my local government saying how I think the double taxation they're trying to put on my local cable bill is wrong, I should just grab my musket and take over the state capitol. Or maybe I should just break off and form my own country because I disagree with the death penalty in my state. Wow. How could I have forgotten about the good ole revolution clause?"

You're trivializing, but its not going to work. Revolution is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, it is not to be used lightly, and apparantly by your application there, you HAVE forgotten about the revolution clause. The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back.

"Which I agree with, but I don't think that other people would agree."

Who the fuck are you? Their thought minister? I propose the guardianship of your thoughts to you, and they to theirs, get out of their skull and desist trying to use broad generalizations to support your nutters little theory.

"So you honestly believe that as long as our government passes a specific bill, then it must be right."

No, I merely believe that the majority of Americans, though apathy, inaction or approval, have given their consent and that the law should be respected.

"Or, if it isn't, and we've wrote letters, protested, signed petitions etc., then, well, I guess we have to revolt, right?"

Apparantly you are a missing something here. . .If enough people disagreed with something, like welfare, and petitioned against it, wrote letters and made calls to Capitol Hill, and their number's were great enough to even consider a Revolution. . .You would see it disappear over night. The aim of a first term politician is to get a second term, and that is all. Politicians reflect the will of the people, but often, the people do not let their will be known and so it is not the politicians I fault. The people are not victims, but they are idle.

"people took offense to the comparison because they came to a conclusion that was irrelevant to the original comparison."

No, I took offense to it because you have no idea where I stand, and exactly how insulting that phrase is, or worse yet, you do and don't care. White people aren't necessarily superiour, I can look around me and see that. I live in an apartment, with moderate means and modest accoutrements. I do, however, love my Irish heritage, with respect for the Germanic, Celtic, Scandinavian and Slavic cultures. Does those make me a hate monger? Hardly.

"So we have self-percieved victims who don't see themselves as victims. Is this the latest breakthrough in your brilliant theory? "

"Yes I do believe that there are times when a person may not be totally aware of the circumstances that form their persona."

Yes, but you are trying to say, not only are they unaware of the circumstance, but also of the persona itself. That is simply ludicrous.

"Can you honestly trace back every influence that turned you into the being you are today?"

No, but I can trace back the majority of them since I reached them through a process of rationalization.

"Can you give me the end-all definition of "self?" Sorry if the idea of subconcious influence is too much of a stretch"

So it becomes like every other psuedo-scientific theory then. When preliminary evidence suggests you're wrong, add in something to make in incomprehensible. For the matter, I am going to posit that all humans truly believe they are clouds, and that they do drugs in order to reach the heavens and soar with their brethren, and that, they do so subconciously. . ,Stupidity.

"I think you're definition of a 'victim' or 'un-victim' like things are a little narrow."

What is this buttfuckery? OF COURSE IT'S NARROW ASSHOLE, THAT'S WHAT DEFINITIONS ARE! They aren't loose conceptions of general ideas, they are strict descriptions. "I think your definition of heterosexcality is narrow! I can rape little girls, and thats still hetero right?!" Come on! Use your fucking head.

"Just because someone is a victim of something doesn't mean that they cannot do something to try and remedy the situation. You call these un-victim like things, but a person can use the fact that they were(or they believed they were) wronged as motivation for their views and actions."

Not everyone who is wronged is a victim, especially in this context, because it is their own laziness which facilitates such situations.

[Pub Lover]

Originally Posted by Adolf

Germany and France are experiencing massive depressions as we speak.

They both have right-wing Governments at the moment.

Originally Posted by Adolf

They are trying to retool their social security programs which caused a massive protest recently, huge numbers of people simply walked off the job.

What would you expect? They are trying to remove entitlements that have been in place for decades, wouldn't you do the same?

Originally Posted by Adolf

So their programs which are highly socialistic aren't working.

Both France & Germany have right-wing dogmatists in power who are deconstructing their social welfare programmes, that as far as I know where working fine.

Originally Posted by Hitler

OR did you mean when most governments in the area were socialist? Which would be what? 10 days in the 1900s?

I think you will find that during the 1960's & 70's social democracy reigned supreme across Western Europe. Even when more right wing parties such as the CDU or the conservatives were in Government during that period they did not depart from the consensus of the times.

Originally Posted by Hitler

Or are you referring to Eastern Europe under the USSR, we all know how great that system was.

They were dictatorships. :/

Originally Posted by Hitler

Nice "what if"...

Yes, sorry about that.
I play that game too often.

[VinceZeb]

How is Germany or France a right-wing govt? Please explain this.

[Pub Lover]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

How is Germany or France a right-wing govt? Please explain this.

I just did a google search, & got 286,000 hits for "france right wing Government"
CNN was one of the top hits, & it was a story from June 2002 when France last had elections & "France's coalition of rightist parties [were] set to be confirmed as the overwhelming election victor, giving a clear mandate to conservative President Jacques Chirac." Now, Jean-Marie Le Pen is extremely right-wing, but that doesn't make Chirac a 'lefty'.

Now, a simular feat of finding supporting evidence simply by replacing 'France' with 'Germany' was unsuccessful insofar as the first few hits were not pertinent to this topic, & as it's almost 4:30 am, my time, I'm not in a mood to pursue it any further.

However, looking back on your question, I see now that you asked for 'Germany or France', therefore I don't feel as guilty now for being so half-arsed.

[AChimp]

Germany is more centrist than right or left. The Social Democrats only pretend that they are left, when in reality they lean right on some issues and go left on others, just like the Liberals here in Canada.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Well it is nice to see two well supported but opposing viewpoints. Your problem is the traditional black or white when the answer is sitting next to me in the gray. Maybe the victim mindset is rooted so deep that it is not apparent to those who have, like everyone in this discusion.

What i want to know is why don't "conservatives" and "liberals" see that maybe they were mistaken and their ideas should change. both sides make good points so let's put away the knives and find the answer, right here in the middle.

[The_Rorschach]

Die.

[HitlerWasReich]

the problem with 286,000 hits is that they are impossible to sort through. It seems that the "right wing" governments have to change social security programs to keep their economies afloat. I tried looking at the causes of recession and policies that were implemented but the task is too much for me. So Pub Lover, you say the right wing government caused these problems, prove it. Can you provide some sources for the economic data you mentioned? Anything to back up your point of view would be much appreciated.

[Bennett]

Your idea that a person cannot be, or rather, view themself as a victim of government unless it is something of an extreme nature doesn't make sense. Maybe I shouldn't have said that your definition was narrow, it's just wrong. Here are two definitions of a victim:
-One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
-A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted, of course I trivialized this. Then you said that because they did not make their will known, they are not victims because it's their own fault. Maybe I should have said your definition was too broad. Regardless, it's wrong.

If a person believes that they fit into one of the definitions above, then they would consider themself a victim. Simple as that, it has nothing to do with fault or their inactions.

Don't take it personally, it's obvious that you don't think of yourself as a victim. It's obvious that you don't think that people should view themselves as victims. I guess that you don't think that there are people that view themselves as victims, either. Or would you never even wonder about that opinion because you aren't the thought police?

Look this isn't Sociology digest, and I'm simply stating an opinion. If the major disagreement between us is whether or not people see themselves as victims of the government, then I would say that I'm right in believing that there are people who see themselves as such as opposed to believing that this is an impossiblity.

Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual. The narrow definition of heterosexual is having intercourse with someone of the opposite sex. It's heterosexual without consent, but all this is beside the point.

[The_Rorschach]

Dictionary dot com? Like your theorizing, your research is lazy and inept.

__________________________________________________ ___
Main Entry: vic·tim
Pronunciation: 'vik-t&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English vyctym, from Latin victima; perhaps akin to Old High German wIh holy
Date: 15th century
1 : a living being sacrificed to a deity or in the performance of a religious rite
2 : one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent <the schools are victims of the social system as a (1) : one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim> (2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment <a frequent victim of political attacks> b : one that is tricked or duped <a con man's victim>
- vic·tim·hood /-"hud/ noun
__________________________________________________ ___

Am I really wrong? Victims cannot create their own victimhood. That defeats their status as 'oppressed.'

"You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted"

No I didn't.

"Simple as that, it has nothing to do with fault or their inactions. "

Nope, it has everything to do with fault.

"Or would you never even wonder about that opinion because you aren't the thought police? "

Never even occoured to me, to be honest, to so much as wonder about it. People are individuals, even those who share close philosophies have unique perspectives.

"Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual."

No, it makes you a rapist and a pedophile. It does not make you a heterosexual. Words have meaning, and must be applied correctly. Would you call a nuclear warhead a chair simple because it can be sat upon?

Grow up Bennet, or at least stop posting. Your views are as boring as they are baseless.

[AChimp]

I'd just like to say that this thread has now gone my ability to comprehend it.

We need direction, people!

[Bennett]

Like your argument, your research is pompous and based on misinterpretation. However, your approved definition, which is so radically different than what I provided again mentions fault nowhere. If your implication of fault balances on the word 'oppressed,' which it seems like it does, may I remind you that the word 'oppressed' is followed by a couple commas and the word 'or'.

["You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted"

No I didn't.]

"Yes. In order for there to be a victim, there needs to be a perpetrator. Who would it be in this context? The Government? But that is who most of these taxpayers are addressing their concerns to."

"The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy"

"Revolution is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, it is not to be used lightly, and apparantly by your application there, you HAVE forgotten about the revolution clause. The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back. "

["Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual."

No, it makes you a rapist and a pedophile. It does not make you a heterosexual. Words have meaning, and must be applied correctly. Would you call a nuclear warhead a chair simple because it can be sat upon?]

Yes words have meaning, and since you are so familiar with that you would know that 'heterosexual' is not only a noun, but also an adjective. Go look it up in your fancy dictionary, and hopefully you will be able to understand how the NARROW definition, remember now about words meaning things, can apply to an act of rape, whether it is pedophilia or not.

"Never even occoured to me, to be honest, to so much as wonder about it. People are individuals, even those who share close philosophies have unique perspectives."

Doesn't suprise me that you would not be interested in this. After all, you are the same compassionate individual who stated: "Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves, not those who seek to resist infringements upon their persons, property or assets."

Do you understand how contradictory this statement is to the rest of your postings? By definition, you say that a victim is usually a person who allows themself to be. In other words, it is their fault that they are a victim. Then you say that a victim cannot create their own victimhood. A person cannot be a victim if it is their fault that they are in that situation. Whatever.

If you want to talk about growing up, stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest. You haven't said anything that was remotely as interesting, insightful or intelligent as El Blanco and vibecrewangel managed to do in around three sentences. If this thread is boring to you, go puff out your chest somewhere else. Or maybe try a civilized post, that would be true grown-up behavior.

[kellychaos]

My loose interpretation of the libertarian party is one in which the government is both small, conservative and loosely controls the economy and where the people are granted individual liberty and personal responsibility. I actually agree with some of their platform but one of the key points that steers me away are some of the nut jobs that the party attracts and to whom they're giving this " individual liberty and personal responsibility" (see Vince). Just sayin'.

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, kelly, I am a productive citizen of the U.S. that cares about my govt so I shouldn't have individual rights or responsabilties. God forbid I don't have a nanny state that watches over me.

Dumbfuck.

[Jeanette X]

No, it makes you a rapist and a pedophile. It does not make you a heterosexual. Words have meaning, and must be applied correctly. Would you call a nuclear warhead a chair simple because it can be sat upon?

I love that analogy Ror! I'm definetely using it when I debate people who refer to pedophile priests who attack altar boys as "homosexuals".

[The_Rorschach]

Poor poor Bennit. Now I understand your failed scholarly attempts. You lack the reading comprehension skills publc schools give seven year olds.

"Like your argument, your research is pompous and based on misinterpretation"

Using an online Webster's dictionary is pompous? Trying to find an exact definition pertaining the roots of the word is misinterretation?

Use smaller words, you may be able to apply them more correctly in the future.


"Yes. In order for there to be a victim, there needs to be a perpetrator. Who would it be in this context? The Government? But that is who most of these taxpayers are addressing their concerns to."

Let me make this simple for you, this statement means:

Government = Mediator, not oppresser

"The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy"

Victimized Citizens = Propencity for revolt

"Revolution is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, it is not to be used lightly, and apparantly by your application there, you HAVE forgotten about the revolution clause. The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back. "

Revolution = Worst Possible Solution.

Now, how can any of these statements, or any comdinations thereof, equal trying to "say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted."

Does this level of stupidty come natural to you, or must you work at it?

"Yes words have meaning, and since you are so familiar with that you would know that 'heterosexual' is not only a noun, but also an adjective."

Yes, but it is inaccurate. If I tell my peers that you are a heterorsexual, will they know that it is your tendancy to try and extrort sexual favours from small children? No? Then obvious heterosexual does not apply to your inclination, because it is not exact enough to encompass your particular sexual deviancy.

"Go look it up in your fancy dictionary, and hopefully you will be able to understand how the NARROW definition, remember now about words meaning things, can apply to an act of rape, whether it is pedophilia or not. "

Actually, you should take your own advice to heart. The whole purpose of a vocabulary is to explain concepts as exactly as possible, not create maneouvring room for flawed theorizing.

"Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves, not those who seek to resist infringements upon their persons, property or assets."

Now see, this is where you are become confused again. Context: study it, respect it, use it. I was using YOUR definition of the Conservatives in your lame little philosophy as the 'Victim,' perhaps I should have put it in quotation marks to make this more clear to you, but I felt that uncecessary considering the tone of the conversation. In any case, saying that Conservatives, and all citizens for that matter, do not take the initiative to make their will known and therefore must suffer policies which do not reflect their interest is hardly new. . .In fact, Plato said it first, and he said it best:

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
- Plato

"Do you understand how contradictory this statement is to the rest of your postings? By definition, you say that a victim is usually a person who allows themself to be. "

No actually I am saying they aren't victims because they are the archtiects of their own misfortune.

"In other words, it is their fault that they are a victim"

Yes therefore they are not victims.

"Then you say that a victim cannot create their own victimhood. A person cannot be a victim if it is their fault that they are in that situation. Whatever. "

You are coming close to the truth now boyo. One more step, need Daddy to hold your hand?

[Bennett]

Now, how can any of these statements, or any comdinations thereof, equal trying to "say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted."

Here you go:
The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back. "

Yes words have meaning, and since you are so familiar with that you would know that 'heterosexual' is not only a noun, but also an adjective."

Yes, but it is inaccurate...

What part of "adjective" don't you understand? You see, I just learned about adjectives in my public school seventh grade class (my catholic school friend says I should've learned this a while ago) and even I know that adjectives are used to describe other words.
When used in this way, a word provides the most detailed possible description of another word.

"Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves"

Sorry, you can try to backtrack all you want... this is your definition not mine. You insist on bringing fault into the equation, rather than accept the definition (even that which you provided).

Your response was pompous because of your tone and assertion that the definition produced from one online dictionary is so vastly superior than another. The misinterpretation deals with your misuse of the definition you provide yourself. Since you can't even agree with yourself on the definition of the term, I guess I shouldn't have expected to see a dictionary clarify anything.

You've contradicted your main point, in a discussion you are uninterested in. Need I say more? Go away.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, he's being a pompous jerk, albeit a funny one, and you are simply failing to comprehend a god damn thing being lobbed at you.

[Bennett]

I understand it fine. He's saying that people can't be victims of the government because it is their own fault that they are in that position because they chose to do nothing.
Mr. Dictionary could have made himself more concise by saying that the people are not victims of the government, they are victims of their own doing.

All of this is beside the point. Not everyone has the same self-sufficient attitude as Ror, and these people who complain and do nothing to better their situations are precisely the types who would view themselves as victims. All of this goes into some area of stipulating about the motivations of others, a.k.a. 'thought police,' that Ror does find worthy of conversation. Which is fine by me, unfortunately, the thread is completely off track now.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Bennett

I understand it fine. He's saying that people can't be victims of the government because it is their own fault that they are in that position because they chose to do nothing.
Mr. Dictionary could have made himself more concise by saying that the people are not victims of the government, they are victims of their own doing.

I think that "action" is only part of it. First comes thought, then will, THEN action. The root part of it is how you view yourself. People who choose to think of themselves as a "victim" will always find an opressor be it the police, government, education system, ect. There will always be something ... just fill in the blank.

[Bennett]

I know it's from Vince and Boortz and all, but:

"Well just how in the hell do you think we get the money you want us to give to you? Do you think these people just come wandering in here with buckets of their money just begging us to find some irresponsible losers to give it to? Come on, girl? We take it, just like I suggested you take it. We take it at the point of a gun! We point that gun at those poor saps and we say “hand it over, or we’ll take every damn thing that you own.�

Likening taxation to being robbed at gunpoint is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sorry to beat a dead horse.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by Bennett

I know it's from Vince and Boortz and all, but:
Likening taxation to being robbed at gunpoint is the type of thing I'm talking about. Sorry to beat a dead horse.

In the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, taxation, at times, came literally close to that. Lump that in with the British forces being able to sequester houses for their used if and when they saw fit (along with some other nasty stuff) and you have the impetus behind the revolution. The government forces being behind taxation is like the gold standard being behind our currency. It's implied. You never see the gold, but it's there. Try not paying your taxes for several years and you'll end up being like our old friend Willie Nelson.