[mag]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo
I think it stopped being a good debate when Todd started comparing today's Europe to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Sovjet Union.

I realize people like to stop listening as soon as they hear the word "Nazi," but there are valid comparisons to be made. Nobody's saying that the English are going to start slaughtering Jews now. But when you're talking about gun control it makes sense to look at historical examples of countries that have actually taken away the right of the citizen to bear arms and where that led. Others did that when they talked about how great European countries that ban guns are. I merely provided a counter example of other kinds of countries that have also banned guns. It seems pretty valid to me. But if you don't think so, please let me know where I'm mistaken here.

Originally Posted by Todd
I don't believe you chickened out. I believe you stuck your head in the sand like an ostrich, because you cannot support your conclusions. You have to change your mind, or you have to leave. And leaving is a lot easier.

You have employed the defense mechanism of a religious zealot. Instead of sharing the reasons you believe what you do, you're acting insulted and leaving. That does nobody any good.

Okay, that was kind of harsh.

Originally Posted by Todd
You cannot simply compare 1945 dollars to 2004 dollars.

Well, if you look at the link I provided, they actually do adjust for inflation and such. It says it's measured in "Billions of 1996 Dollars."

Originally Posted by Todd
Show me an example of anyone who has lost any rights to the patriot act, and I will show you a law that get struck down.

I'm not sure if you meant a law the got struck down or a law that will get struck down. Only a small portion of the Patriot Act has been struck down at this point. And another court may not uphold that decision.

We've all lost rights to the Patriot Act. Maybe it will be reversed someday. I hope it will be. But right now that's the law. And given how difficult it is to undo a law once it's in place, I wouldn't be counting on the courts (stacked with conservative judges) to strike it down any time soon.

Originally Posted by Todd
The U.S. is ruled not by men (such as the president), and not by the people, but by law. The Constitution is the highest law. But that law has always been decaying into a democracy.

So we shouldn't let people have a say because they're too stupid to know what's good for them?

Originally Posted by Todd
In any form of government, the power us ultimately derived from the consent of the governed (whether the people know it or not). The people always rule, and they always get the government they deserve. If they give up their rights, and their ability to defend their rights, they become subjects of their own governments instead of free citizens.

That's bull. You mean to tell me that if a dictator takes control of a country by force, then the people are responsible? That's insane. There are certain situations where you don't have a choice as to whether or not you're going to "give up" your rights. It's not like they consult you in their decision making process.

Besides, America is more of a republic than a democracy. We just say it's a democracy to make ourselves feel better.

Originally Posted by Todd
It "almost never" ends in death? How do you know this? Jane Goodall sure hasn't observed 100,000 chimps, and she's seen a few cased of murders. She's also seen fights between tribes involving much death. Apes often kill their young, too. Is that not murder? I would guess that their murder rate is several times what ours is. But I don't claim to know it because nobody does.

Okay. I'll admit that there have been cases where chimps will kill babies. I forgot about that. That's about it, though. And it's still a very small number. Also, fighting between groups of chimps is different from fighting within groups. That's not murder. That's warfare. It would be like pointing to the war in Iraq and saying how high the murder rate is. We don't count those as murders.

I think there's about one anthropologist who has suggested that apes have a high murder rate. And he hasn't provided any proof of that. Even if you want to call my evidence "fictional" it still doesn't say anything. Not murdering is pretty much the default value here. If you want to convince me that apes do murder each other, then the burden of proof is on you. That nobody has yet found evidence of murder rates among apes anywhere near that of humans is a pretty powerful statement.

mag

[Swordmaster]

Originally Posted by Todd

What I'm suggesting saves lives and reduces crime.

Says you. We obviously have very differing views on how to do that.

Originally Posted by Todd

What you're spelling out is that you're rather feel safe than be safe. You're saying that emotion is more important than the human ability to reason. You would rather let people suffer and die so you can feel good. That's inhuman.

Now where did I say that? I'm not embracing violence; I'm saying that from an individual's point of view it's better to live your life carefree rather than stress about going for a walk and panic each time a stranger approaches you. Are you arguing that it's actually better for you to be scared?

I'm eating my healthy dose of kryptonite right about now.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

I think it stopped being a good debate when Todd started comparing today's Europe to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Sovjet Union.

And how many times have you compared Bush to Hitler over the past few months? I guess that either you're being hypocritical or just joking.

[Swordmaster]

I think this thread needs a kitten.

[Todd]

mag>> Well, if you look at the link I provided, they actually do adjust for inflation and such. It says it's measured in "Billions of 1996 Dollars."

I wonder how they figure that out...


mag>> So we shouldn't let people have a say because they're too stupid to know what's good for them?

No, I'm not saying the people are stupid. (That's the same kind of demagoguery Moore would use to attack a libertarian, BTW.)

I'm saying the majority can and do vote to take away the rights of the minority, and the ultimate minority is YOU. You have to defend everyone's rights equally under the law just to defend your own. This phenomenon is as common and as old as democracy itself.


mag>> That's bull.

No, actually this is bull.


mag>> You mean to tell me that if a dictator takes control of a country by force, then the people are responsible?

Yes, because who else would be? Each individual is responsible for defending his own rights. If you don't, nobody else will. Nobody else cares as much as you do/should.


mag>> That's insane.

Insane? Nah. It's reasonable and necessary.

It's highly doubtful than any of these things could have happened if people took their responsibility to defend their rights more seriously. (The big sculls are worth 1,000,000 human lives.)


mag>> There are certain situations where you don't have a choice as to whether or not you're going to "give up" your rights. It's not like they consult you in their decision making process.

That's another reason it's so important to preserve the right to bear arms. Government only has one special tool that makes it different from anyone else: it has the power to use force legally. People in the government are unable to violate our rights when we are armed, because they don't want to risk being killed unless it's for a very good reason, and violating rights isn't a good reason.


mag>> Besides, America is more of a republic than a democracy. We just say it's a democracy to make ourselves feel better.

Yeah, but I think most people say democracy because they don't know any better.


mag>> I'm not sure if you meant a law the got struck down or a law that will get struck down. Only a small portion of the Patriot Act has been struck down at this point. And another court may not uphold that decision.

( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4065424/ )

It's still decided on an individual basis. When someone thinks his rights are violated, he'll go to court to override the law. Then when people figure it out, some politician and/or organization will crusade against it. Nobody has lost any rights. They have only gained fear.


mag>> Okay. I'll admit that there have been cases where chimps will kill babies. I forgot about that. That's about it, though.

A lot of cases, I've heard.

Jane Goodall has observed at least one "murder" (if you can call a chimp killing another chimp a murder), and she's only observed a tiny sample size of chimps, not 100,000. It seems like she may have seen more than one instance, but I forgot the details.


mag>> And it's still a very small number. Also, fighting between groups of chimps is different from fighting within groups. That's not murder. That's warfare. It would be like pointing to the war in Iraq and saying how high the murder rate is. We don't count those as murders.

You can play games with words, but I don't think you're doing yourself a favor. Did a chimp dictator violate every United Chimps ceasefire agreement for 12 years so they had to invoke constitutional law to declare war on another troupe? No, of course not. I'd say it's more like gang warfare, which *is* counted as murder, and which is very much the human equivalent to this sort of ape behavior.


mag>> If you want to convince me that apes do murder each other, then the burden of proof is on you. That nobody has yet found evidence of murder rates among apes anywhere near that of humans is a pretty powerful statement.

I don't want to convince you of anything, nor can I. That's your right and your responsibility. I can only explain what has convinced me.

You have made claims about primitive cultures and apes. I have only doubted your theories, because I doubt the evidence on which they are based.

Now you say there's only one anthropologist who "agrees" with me? I'm sure there are a lot more. Science requires doubt, not agreement.

I believe that myths about primitive cultures were also used by Karl Marx, if you would care to research that. (But I don't, because it's quite far beside my point!)


Swordmaster>> Says you. We obviously have very differing views on how to do that.

Yes, says me, and I'm curious to know why we do. When you tell me about your positions, maybe you could include evidence?


Swordmaster>> Now where did I say that? I'm not embracing violence; I'm saying that from an individual's point of view it's better to live your life carefree rather than stress about going for a walk and panic each time a stranger approaches you. Are you arguing that it's actually better for you to be scared?

Hmm, why would you panic each time a stranger approaches you?

I'm arguing it's actually better if you're safe, as opposed to imagining you're safe when you're really not. I'm also arguing that preserving the most basic natural right to self-defense keeps you safer from criminals and is important to secure your freedom.

Anyway, I definitely disagree that is better to live you're life carefree. I think it's much more important to live it carefully.

Now you're talking about stress, you lead me to another interesting topic: suicide rates. W.H.O., most recent year available up to 2003:

Japan: 50.6
Austria: 45.5
France: 35.5
Denmark: 30.0
Germany: 27.5
Australia: 26.3
Canada: 24.6
United States: 21.7
Netherlands: 19.3
U.K.: 14.2

Like the murder rates above, each number represents a dead person per 100,000.

Some of these nations have so many suicides that it dwarfs the number of U.S. homicides (which are mostly gang members killing gang members as we know). Two wrongs doesn't make a right, but you think the U.S. is such a violent fearful place, and these other countries are so happy and rosy, why are so many people in Japan, Austria, France, Denmark, etc I didn't list choosing to just off themselves rather than keep living there?

And don't even get me started about ape suicide rates!

[Todd]

>> I think this thread needs a kitten.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

[Ninja Dodo]

Todd, I have no sand in my ears thank you very much.

And I'm not making fun of a person with a disability. I'm making fun of an incompetent president. If he really has a learning disability he should never have become president in the first place.

Titan: When I compare Bush to Hitler I'm mostly joking but the one similarity is that they are and were both a great threat to world peace. The difference with what Todd is doing is that I'm comparing one person to another, while he's comparing all of European society to totalitarian states. I have on occasion compared the USA to "1984", but when I did I drew on clear and real similarities. I did not resort to wild speculation and generalization.

Todd, the articles you like so much ramble on to discredit their opponents just as much as Moore's do, but contrary to Moore, they don't actually have anything else to say. Inbetween allegations of insanity and bias (that appear to be fairly accurate anyway), Moore makes some very good points that are in no way adressed by the gun-toting NRA.

CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control–has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.

He also makes no secret of Heston's full speech. I read through a transcript on Moore's site and it matched the fragments on the Hardylaw site just fine.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

I think this is a very good point. The NRA doesn't have a leg to stand on. So in the technique that you so despise they just try to shout down Moore as much as possible.

Enjoy.

[Todd]

Ninja Dodo>> Todd, the articles you like so much ramble on to discredit their opponents just as much as Moore's do, but contrary to Moore, they don't actually have anything else to say.

Oh yeah? Then why don't you give me some examples? I'll even help you out with some articles spinsanity.org clipped:

Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?
Moore's myriad mistakes
Moore admits to altering "Bowling for Columbine" DVD
Moore alters "Bowling" DVD in response to criticism
A devotion to distortion [published in the Orange County Register]
Forbes finds more falsehoods in Moore's "Bowling"
Viewer beware
Dowd, Krugman and Moore make inflammatory accusations
Moore problems
One Moore stupid white man
Stupid white lies
The Taliban aid trope re-emerges

Forbes Magazine
Bowl-o-Drama
Daniel Lyons, 12.09.02

Michael Moore's Oscar-contender documentary, Bowling for Columbine, pokes fun at corporate creeps and hypocrites in his crusade to figure out who is to blame for the gun-related violence in America. But we've found Moore's facts a little slippery.

TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.
ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him.
ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

Also, here's a video from Evan Coyne Maloney of BrainTerminal.com. I've emailed him a few times and he's a really cool guy.



Ninja Dodo>> Inbetween allegations of insanity and bias (that appear to be fairly accurate anyway), Moore makes some very good points that are in no way adressed by the gun-toting NRA.

Curious. In your understanding, what exactly is the NRA?


Ninja Dodo>> I think this is a very good point. The NRA doesn't have a leg to stand on. So in the technique that you so despise they just try to shout down Moore as much as possible.

The NRA doesn't sue more because that's not what they do, and Moore knows that. Even if they did, they wouldn't have a case because Moore only uses clever editing to imply things without making any kind of statement about truth. Moore is a political commentator with artistic license. He has no responsibility to the truth.

The NRA especially doesn't try to "shout down Moore as much as possible." In fact they totally ignore him: http://www.nra.org/

[ysbreker]

Forbes Magazine
Bowl-o-Drama
Daniel Lyons, 12.09.02

Michael Moore's Oscar-contender documentary, Bowling for Columbine, pokes fun at corporate creeps and hypocrites in his crusade to figure out who is to blame for the gun-related violence in America. But we've found Moore's facts a little slippery.

TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it's not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.

He didn't say they went to bolwling class before the shooting, he said that they went bowling at six in the morning. And they had bowling class as an extra curricilum...

MISSILES: Moore wonders whether kids at Columbine might be driven to violence because of the "weapons of mass destruction" made in Lockheed Martin's assembly plant in Littleton. Moore shows giant rockets being assembled.
ACTUALLY: Lockheed Martin's plant in Littleton doesn't make weapons. It makes space launch vehicles for TV satellites.

I definately saw banners in the movie which said titan assembly hall. I thought that the titan was a nuclear missile? but they could be satelite launchers, but I don't think that that factory was producing satelite launchers since it was built...

WELFARE: Moore places blame for a shooting by a child in Michigan on the work-to-welfare program that prevented the boy's mother from spending time with him.
ACTUALLY: Moore doesn't mention that mom had sent the boy to live in a house where her brother and a friend kept drugs and guns.

He does tell you that the mother was forced to do that cause she had to work 72 hours a week... and he doesn't justify the fact that the mother dropped the kid of at her brothers house, he just says why she did it.

BANK: Moore says North Country Bank & Trust in Traverse City, Mich., offered a deal where, "if you opened an account, the bank would give you a gun." He walks into a branch and walks out with a gun.
ACTUALLY: Moore didn't just walk in off the street and get a gun. The transaction was staged for cameras. You have to buy a long-term CD, then go to a gun shop to pick up the weapon after a background check.

If you watched the film you hear one of the bank employee's say that they are a licenced gunselling point and that they have to keep 500 guns in their safe at all times, by law. If he got the gun a few days later, well that's artistic freedom for you


Oh and about the USA being more socialistic than conservative: most people think that the most conservative right party in the netherlands would be considered extreme left in the USA...

[edit]I wrote this before reading the wackoattacko thing and when I read past his emotional outbursts he still makes a lot of valid points...

[mag]

Well Todd, you had to do it, didn't you? You just had to make me get off my lazy butt and look up my sources. Fortunately for you, I don't have time to do that right now. But rest assured. When I return to this thread it will be with a comprehensive list of citations with which to crush your mind.

mag

[Todd]

>>He didn't say they went to bolwling class before the shooting, he said that they went bowling at six in the morning. And they had bowling class as an extra curricilum...

I'd like to see it for myself so I can tell if he's trying to fool his viewers. I bet he is. It really doesn't even matter if they went bowling, though. What you're supposed to realize is that the basis of the name of the movie is absolute nonsense designed to appeal to emotions rather than reason. It's a clever title designed to sell Moore's product.

Moore is totally missing is balance, not that he's under any obligation to have any, but he's missing it on purpose because it would totally undermind his ridiculous message. He says Bush is a fearmonger, but then so is Moore. His message is smoke and mirrors. You're being totally manipulated by graphics, sound effects, and personality.

Anywhere in his movie does he mention that guns are used to stop crimes around 2 million times in the U.S. every year? Does he show any evidence of those cases, or does he sweep them under the rug? When he talks about how evil conservatives are, does he ever explain why you should be scared, or does he just beg the question? Does he really give reasons for anything? If he gives reasons, what are they?

Are you to believe that we a high murder rate because we don't have socialized medicine like in Canada, even when Canada's socialized medicine is failing resulting in death for the people there? Did Moore mention the fact that most of our murders are gang members killing other gang members? Or did he just skip over that?


>> If you watched the film you hear one of the bank employee's say that they are a licenced gunselling point and that they have to keep 500 guns in their safe at all times, by law. If he got the gun a few days later, well that's artistic freedom for you

I've seen Moore asked about this in a pretty softball interview in "The View." You know how he responded? Repeatedly shouting over the woman interviewing him yelling "then why don't they sue me!?" He wouldn't even answer the simple question "was it staged?" Of course it was staged. Yet Moore presented it as the truth, and as if this bank is somehow representative of America. You know how many banks give away guns for opening accounts? Not very many other than that one, which is in a state where there's a lot of hunting. (Sort of like there is in Canada or Finland, mind you.)

Did Moore tell you how many guns from that bank were ever used in crimes? Of course not. He's creating an illusion about the U.S. He's spinning a web, and you're getting caught in it. His illusion is a lie for people who want to be afraid, and do not want to think for themselves about the real issues.


>> Oh and about the USA being more socialistic than conservative: most people think that the most conservative right party in the netherlands would be considered extreme left in the USA...

I don't know if that's just your opinion or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. The Netherlands is considered to be more socialist that us, and probably more economically conservative than the rest of europe and more socially liberal than almost any industrialized nation. For instance, aren't many drugs legal there? I would like to see drugs legalized here as a way to stop most of our crime and murder, and save up to $200 billion per year in spending. I mean, can you believe it? We spend almost half as much money per year just to fight the failing "war on drugs" as your whole nation produces!

But the Netherlands seems to be doing well compared with the rest of Europe. As far as crime rates they seem pretty low. People aren't making as much wealth as in the U.S. per capita, but you're keeping up with the rest of Europe. I suspect that those countries in Europe that least utilize socialism would be the most prosperous and crime-free.

Also, I didn't say the U.S. is more socialistic than conservative. I said it moving towards socialism and most people are for socialism because they don't understand how our govenrment works, or even how a constitutional government differs from a democracy. I think I also said it's half socialism, since 42% of our wealth is spent on the government. What is that figure in Holland? I'd just guess around 60% of the top of my head.

[Todd]

Originally Posted by mag

Well Todd, you had to do it, didn't you? You just had to make me get off my lazy butt and look up my sources. Fortunately for you, I don't have time to do that right now. But rest assured. When I return to this thread it will be with a comprehensive list of citations with which to crush your mind.

mag

Usually when someone says something like that I never hear from them again!!

But I trust that you will return. I just hope you're careful about your sources, because if I see things like "Handguns-Inc." I'm just going to have to waste an equal amount of time figuring out how they're misrepresenting the data.

[Marek]

Hey, if you copy/paste all the text in this thread, and save it as an .mpeg file... turns out it's a video of a man playing the banjo!!!

Proof:


Well done! I'm impressed.

[Zygomaticus]

Originally Posted by Marek

Hey, if you copy/paste all the text in this thread, and save it as an .mpeg file... turns out it's a video of a man playing the banjo!!!

Proof:


Well done! I'm impressed.

That's the coolest thing I ever saw.

Let me try it...

IT WORKS

[Erwin_Br]

While I can see why people are afraid of the liberty to own guns, I do agree with Todd here.

Example:

There are many countries that despise our (the Netherlands) drug laws. Here we're allowed to possess certain kinds of (soft)drugs. It's legal for a very simple reason: control.

Drug dealing causes a lot of crime. Here we have increased related crime rates, because you can buy the stuff in a shop instead of going to the obscure dealer. That eliminates, for starters, the problem of having criminals walking around selling drugs in the street where your child plays every day.

In the USA (and almost every other country on the globe, heh.) drugs are illegal. What we see here is drug gangs, networks and dealers. Drugs are a hell of a lot more expensive in these countries because it's harder to get. Naturally this causes a lot of crime.

While you can't *really* compare the gun and drug laws with eachother, I do think that it has it's parallels. And yes, I can see why Todd doesn't want to lose the right.

--Erwin

[Zygomaticus]

In agreement with Erwin, I raise again, one of my previous statements. I too see Todd's reasoning because he giving up his gun will not guarantee that the criminial, who is planning to break into his house tomorrow, will give up his gun.

It's like (extreme example) country A saying to [insert enemy nation], "we'll give up our nukes if you do the same." What if the enemy nation doesn't and begins to use them on country A?

Guaranteed security (the guarantee that *every* gun is confiscated) is difficult to give and that is why, I think, gun-owners are afraid to give up their guns.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by Kode

In agreement with Erwin, I raise again, one of my previous statements. I too see Todd's reasoning because he giving up his gun will not guarantee that the criminial, who is planning to break into his house tomorrow, will give up his gun.

It's like (extreme example) country A saying to [insert enemy nation], "we'll give up our nukes if you do the same." What if the enemy nation doesn't and begins to use them on country A?

Guaranteed security (the guarantee that *every* gun is confiscated) is difficult to give and that is why, I think, gun-owners are afraid to give up their guns.

True, indeed.

I've heard many times the argument that the USA should destroy it's own weapons of mass destruction first, before they can demand that other countries do the same. But if the USA don't have these weapons, than what on earth is keeping the other countries from building them!? I think the opposite would happen. Even MORE countries would build them.

--Erwin

[Marek]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

But if the USA don't have these weapons, than what on earth is keeping the other countries from building them!? I think the opposite would happen.

Ah, so that's why they've got eleven thousand nuclear warheads.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by Marek

Ah, so that's why they've got eleven thousand nuclear warheads.

I don't know how much they got, and I doubt anyone knows except a very select few people within the US government.

Besides, what's the point? It's not as if they're ever going to fire eleven thousand nuclear missiles at once. I doubt they'll even fire ONE after what happened in Hiroshima back then.

It's merely a way of displaying muscles.

--Erwin

[Wormsie]

Some have argued that USA isn't as powerful as its oftten thought. The only thing it could do to France was renaming french fries to Freedom Fries.

But first we need more kittens.

I have to apologise for this. I don't have enough information about these matters and English isn't my first languge. Even I can see some of the inconsistencies. Paragraphs that follow each other might have nothing to do with the ones before or after them. If you sense anger, its not exactly a false impression. But my bloodpressure didn't rise, as usual when I write lengthy posts when my views collide with someone else's. I repeat: Although it might look like I'm furious, I'm not. I just wanted to say the things with emphasis, since I was unable to form an otherwise interesting thingy. I know Todd will use it against me, as he always does, but I try to remain calm when he does. [This post was four times as long with a short story and it cotained three times as more curse words. It made even less sense. So in the end I removed some of the weaker points. Enjoy. That above paragraph isn't true, mostly.]

I don't ever remembering writing someting this long about this kind of subject... But I haven't said anything with any real substance in a long time, so I might just say it now in time. Then I can move back to posting mindless polls. Deal?

A few thoughts about the capitalism.org site:
1) The image of arts the capitalism site gives is rather unbelievable. It says that also who makes the art matters. Well, many of the greatest compositions, poems, etc. have been made by people who the creators of that site would call "drug-hippies" or whatever it was. What is good art is quite subjective.

The site suggests that this place would be a heaven if we only were capitalists.

2) Life can NOT be purely great, unlike the site claims. The site is stuck with an idealised, fake-reneissance view of the human being. That site is a sole creation of American ĂĽber-positive attitudes, that sees life as black and white, but also as something that can be made almost completely white if we just try hard enough.
4) That site idealizes money as the bringer of all things good. I'd advise people to treat anything that has a large $ sign in the front with suspicion.
5) And once again that bit about art. How is man "a hero"? The purpose the site gives art is quite different from what I think art should be about! To summarize, the site says art is something you look at in the morning when you enter the large office complex of the business you work for - a golden $ sign maybe - that reminds you of your greatness. Or MacDonalds' logo... Well that's just utter folly. Like, art is supposed to give you a *******! Yeah! **** the substance! **** the philosophy! **** interpretations! **** the view of the world or the human life, because we are ******* heroes, if we just believe in it!

I'd like to ask you a few clarifying questions, Todd. First of all, would you say that everything that's profitable in business is OK? Second, do you think that for example, I, Marek, your mother, everyone, is a potential way to make yourself profit? (A couple of thoughts the capitalism site presented.)

-----------------

There. I probably should have removed most of the accusations. [And I did.] Never been any good at thinking. Anyway, I mostly wanted to steer this discussion to a bit different direction, since it seems to me that some of the things discussed are not exactly that important or even relevant. And Todd, when you disagree, say something else than "prove it", because I'd actually like to find out more info, but frankly that capitalism site was so absurd that... phewww. I need something else to convince me than Citius Altius Fortius!

What I actually expect you to say, Todd, is that what I'm talking about is not capitalism. You might well be correct. [This comment is irrelevant, as I removed most of the strange bits. I talked a lot about science...]

EDIT: Now that I re-read this, the kittens just make this post look even more horrible, macabre, even. I'll move the kittens to a separate post.