Most Controversial Posters

[Guest Some Guy]

Capitalism is a fine way of ruling society, but I have a trouble with the fact large businesses always buy out smaller businesses because they have more money - thus increasing their enormous wealth and shortchanging someone working just as hard as them.

The problem is if you start handcuffing the successful there is less and less motivation for success. Many of the large stores, such as Walmart that you dislike started out relatively small and became giants. Who's to say that some guy (not me) won;t come along with the nest big thing to knock Walmart off the top and take over? It's a cyclical system and works better than any other ever tried. Capitalism rewards success and leaves failures behind, but still provides more oppurtunities for the failures to become successes.

Marxism, Socialism, Communism do not offer such oppurtunity. Those systems are doomed to fail from the on set because the underlying premis of them does not work. Punishing success by gross over taxation promotes anger and halts the motivation of the successful to continue producing goods. The redistribution of that weath to the lazy or unsuccessful promotes complacency unmongst those people and provides no empetus to get them working. Why work if you can have a more than adequate standard of living for nothing?

I've studied this and written many papers on this subject. If I have to I'll dwelve deeper but for now I'm done.

 

My Political Compass resulsts:

Economic Left/Right: 3.25

Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.03

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Here's what I got:

 

Economic Left/Right: -4.50

Authoritarian/Libertarian: -5.79

 

I still don't totally understand what that means though, other than that I'm one of those damned "liberal artist" hippies

[Guest Some Guy]

Do you have an urge to liberate India, Flow?

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Do you have an urge to liberate India, Flow?

Actually, I'd love to liberate some of India's "Bollywood" films (more of which are produced yearly than throughout the rest of the world if I remember correctly) and get them distribution in the states.

 

As for the country itself, I don't know that much about it. Not to sound like the uninformed, but they don't still use the caste system do they?

[Guest Some Guy]

Yes they use the caste system. They also have a major over population problem (over 1 Billion) and massive starvation and governmental problems, but at least they have Nukes. Seems to me that feeding and educating your citezens should be more important than weapons of mass destruction, but that's just the Liberal in me talking.

I was joking, you are pretty close to Ghandi on the scale. He led the Indian revolution against England that subsequently led to the creation of Pakistan due to religous differences primarilly (India=Hindu and Pakistan=Muslim) and now they kill each other over a little strip of land called Kasmir and he was somewhat of an inperation for MLK Jr. with peaceful protests and what not.

[Guest bob_barron]

Can anyone tell me what gettting a 2.50 and 1.23 mean?

 

I gotta know.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Yes they use the caste system.  They also have a major over population problem (over 1 Billion) and massive starvation and governmental problems, but at least they have Nukes.  Seems to me that feeding and educating your citezens should be more important than weapons of mass destruction, but that's just the Liberal in me talking.  

I was joking, you are pretty close to Ghandi on the scale.  He led the Indian revolution against England that subsequently led to the creation of Pakistan due to religous differences primarilly (India=Hindu and Pakistan=Muslim) and now they kill each other over a little strip of land called Kasmir and he was somewhat of an inperation for MLK Jr. with peaceful protests and what not.

I can't believe they still use the caste system. I can rant about capitalism being bad, but I also know I only say that because I'm broke and can't enjoy in all its benefits. The caste system, however, is the worst political/social system ever. That's awful that they still use it...

 

Yea, I knew about the high population and the nukes too. Don't both India and Pakistan have nukes now? What's the big deal about Kasmir? I've heard of it and of the conflict around it, but why? Is it like the conflicts over Jerusalem and the Gaza where both sides have vital religious monuments there, or is it over resources?

 

And yea... food and education is a HELL of a lot more important than any military, particularly a mainly offensive one like a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, whereas the capitalist system can make education and living hard for a lot of people (just how many and how accurate that statement is is another debate entirely of course), in the caste system its literally impossible

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Can anyone tell me what gettting a 2.50 and 1.23 mean?

 

I gotta know.

Well, positive means you're "more" "right-wing" (can't think of a better way of putting it) in regards to economics and "more" fascist in regards to politics. I think. But even though you're positive, you're not "very" fascist, so don't worry.

[Guest Incandenza]

Bob--it means you're a conservative, more or less. Nowhere near as far right as Ann Coulter, but maybe close to your idol, Bill O'Reilly.

[Guest Some Guy]

1)I can't believe they still use the caste system. I can rant about capitalism being bad, but I also know I only say that because I'm broke and can't enjoy in all its benefits. The caste system, however, is the worst political/social system ever. That's awful that they still use it...

 

2)Yea, I knew about the high population and the nukes too. Don't both India and Pakistan have nukes now? What's the big deal about Kasmir? I've heard of it and of the conflict around it, but why? Is it like the conflicts over Jerusalem and the Gaza where both sides have vital religious monuments there, or is it over resources?

 

3)And yea... food and education is a HELL of a lot more important than any military, particularly a mainly offensive one like a nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, whereas one can say the capitalist system makes education and living hard for a lot of people (just how many and how accurate that statement is is another debate entirely of course), in the caste system its literally impossible

1) Theocratic regimes are stupid regardless of religion. The Caste system is not the worst system in history (Soviet Russia comes to mind) but it is really bad. There is no room for upward mobilty, where as in Capitalism there is plenty if you look for it.

 

2) Yes they both have Nukes and they both lie about it.

Kasmir is a small strip of fretile land that they fight over for shits and giggles I suppose. It's a religious thing more than anything though. That's why there is a small portion of Pakistan to the east of India. religion tends to fuck things up a lot in that part of the world, in case you hadn't noticed.

 

3) True, but I'd disagree that capitalism as a system makes it hard for people to succeed.

[Guest NazMistry]

Yes they use the caste system. They also have a major over population problem (over 1 Billion) and massive starvation and governmental problems, but at least they have Nukes. Seems to me that feeding and educating your citezens should be more important than weapons of mass destruction, but that's just the Liberal in me talking.

I was joking, you are pretty close to Ghandi on the scale. He led the Indian revolution against England that subsequently led to the creation of Pakistan due to religous differences primarilly (India=Hindu and Pakistan=Muslim) and now they kill each other over a little strip of land called Kasmir and he was somewhat of an inperation for MLK Jr. with peaceful protests and what not.

I like the way you have generalised my Native country to it's absoloute worst points.

[Guest Some Guy]

Yes they use the caste system.  They also have a major over population problem (over 1 Billion) and massive starvation and governmental problems, but at least they have Nukes.  Seems to me that feeding and educating your citezens should be more important than weapons of mass destruction, but that's just the Liberal in me talking.  

I was joking, you are pretty close to Ghandi on the scale.  He led the Indian revolution against England that subsequently led to the creation of Pakistan due to religous differences primarilly (India=Hindu and Pakistan=Muslim) and now they kill each other over a little strip of land called Kasmir and he was somewhat of an inperation for MLK Jr. with peaceful protests and what not.

I like the way you have generalised my Native country to it's absoloute worst points.

Probably so. What are it's good points?

[Guest bob_barron]

Bob--it means you're a conservative, more or less. Nowhere near as far right as Ann Coulter, but maybe close to your idol, Bill O'Reilly.

Sweet!!!!!

 

Incandenza totally made my day

[Guest Incandenza]

Glad I could help.

[Guest NazMistry]

Yes they use the caste system.  They also have a major over population problem (over 1 Billion) and massive starvation and governmental problems, but at least they have Nukes.  Seems to me that feeding and educating your citezens should be more important than weapons of mass destruction, but that's just the Liberal in me talking.  

I was joking, you are pretty close to Ghandi on the scale.  He led the Indian revolution against England that subsequently led to the creation of Pakistan due to religous differences primarilly (India=Hindu and Pakistan=Muslim) and now they kill each other over a little strip of land called Kasmir and he was somewhat of an inperation for MLK Jr. with peaceful protests and what not.

I like the way you have generalised my Native country to it's absoloute worst points.

Probably so. What are it's good points?

It pains me to say this but there aren't actually many good points at this point.

So to be fair, your assessment was quite accurate to a point.

 

The real thing behind Kashmir goes back several centuries, and for most non extremist Hindus (like me) and non extremist Pakistani Muslims, Kashmir is the fault of Britain and it's divide and rule attitude.

If you like I could give you a somewhat detailed description of how Kashmir came about but basically it follows this chain of events:

 

The Muslim Moghuls take control of most of India during the 16th/17th/18th Centuries.

Britain's empire grows and arrives in India looking for tradable commodities.

The British Empire forcefully strikes a deal with the Moghul rulers over the control of Indian goods and land.

The Moghuls are slowly relenuished of power and the 'East India Company' takes over.

Soon the British Empire itself assumes control of India (actually called Hindustan to those who live in India).

During the early 2oth century, desire for the self-rule of India increases and Britain makes some concessions allowing India to have a small government of it's own.

The freedom movement is led by Gandhi, Nehru (both Hindu) and Jinna (Muslim).

The Indian government is handpicked by Britain and is completely Hindu.

Jinna feels that the Muslims are not being represented.

There had always been trouble between Hindus & Muslims but not really big problems like now. Incidentally the Sikh population was generally friendly with both sides.

Britain continued to slightly ignore the muslim opinion, and in the build to WW2, Britain decides to downscale Indian involvement in the running of India, including declaring War on Germany & Japan on the behalf of India.

Jinna then starts to call for a separate Muslim state (Pakistan).

But there are three strong Muslim strongholds, North-West India, East India, and central India.

Britain decides to split India into three after a vote by the local state leaders.

West Pakistan is created, East Pakistan(now Bangladesh) is created, but the central based Muslims strangely decide to join India.

Britain just ups and leaves without monitoring the potentially dangerous situation.

During the build to independence Muslim and Hindu hostility grew considerably because of Britain's ignorance in assigning power within the Indian government.

Mass violence breaks out as Hindus move flee to safe Indian soil, and Muslims evacuate India to get to One of the two Pakistans.

India fears for it's safety being positioned between two Mulsim countries.

Kashmir is mostly Muslim but it contains one particularly key Hindu sacred place. Britain gives Kashmir to India before leaving.

West Pakistan tries to run East Pakistan but the two fall out, and India helps East Pakistan gain independence from West pakistan.

West Pakistan does not like this and the tension grows.

Two full scale wars have broke out since, and Kashmir has been given as the only reason for the trouble. But the animosity has grown from day one.

 

The Nukes didn't help, neither did the Terrorist movements of both nations. The problem won't end soon. And the worst (Nuclear War) is always in the back of everyones mind.

[Guest Some Guy]

Ok, so India wanted to be let go and left alone adn Pakistan wanted the same, right? How is this Britain's fault? You could just as easily attribute the problem to the conquerers of the land, the Moghuls or to the rediculous religios infigthing between the two. Kasmir is mostly Muslim with 1 Hindu thing, why not let the Hindus freely visit their place and give the Muslim populated area to Pakistan? Oops! Common sence in a religious debate, my bad.

I'm not at all religious so I don't understamd why these people are so God damned stubborn and unwilling to comprimise, but this shit is just stupid. 2 major wars in 50 years over a small piece of land, is a waste of time.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

3) True, but I'd disagree that capitalism as a system makes it hard for people to succeed.

Whoops, that was my error. I meant to put the key word "can". That's a mistake I make often in political/philosophical/whatever arguments.

[Guest Some Guy]

How does the system make it hard? Granted it doesn't necessarilly make it easy, but it's surely better than any other that I know of.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

How does the system make it hard? Granted it doesn't necessarilly make it easy, but it's surely better than any other that I know of.

Well, its not necessarily the system itself, but a big problem comes when the people that are higher up in the system are allowed more opportunities at "better" schools, already having business contacts, etc. that people who are starting up don't get an equal opportunity from the get-go. Now I realize that's a natural part of the free market, at least there's even an opportunity in the first place, but still, it seems like capitalism only really works well if you start out on top.

[Guest NazMistry]

Ok, so India wanted to be let go and left alone adn Pakistan wanted the same, right? How is this Britain's fault? You could just as easily attribute the problem to the conquerers of the land, the Moghuls or to the rediculous religios infigthing between the two. Kasmir is mostly Muslim with 1 Hindu thing, why not let the Hindus freely visit their place and give the Muslim populated area to Pakistan? Oops! Common sence in a religious debate, my bad.

I'm not at all religious so I don't understamd why these people are so God damned stubborn and unwilling to comprimise, but this shit is just stupid. 2 major wars in 50 years over a small piece of land, is a waste of time.

The only answer to this is, it's not that simple.

The hatred is so extreme, it's beyond the point of peaceful negotiation between the two countries alone.

The thing with Britain being faulted was that they did not understand the delicate balance that had been maintained between Hindus and Muslims.

So when the British drew out their plans for gradual withdrawl from India, they did not realise they had to deal with both at the same time. And when they at first ignored Muslim citizens, the seeds of paranoia between the two faiths were planted.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Their near-simultaneous acquisition of nuclear weapons was the best thing that could have happened to India and Pakistan, if not to the rest of the world.

[Guest Some Guy]

Not true. My dad had shit when he was a kid, his father was a bus driver and his mom a hair dresser. He busted his fucking ass and became a lawyer to provide a better chance for his kids to succeed. There is a way and there is oppurtunity, just because it may be easier for those "on top" doesn't mean that it's impossible or even unfair for those who aren't. You have to start off somewhere and Capitalism doesn't guarrentee success, it just gives you the oppurtunity for it. It's a two way street, failure is also a part of the system, but so is 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc... chances to succeed. You just have to go and get it, no one ever said it was easy and it shouldn't be.

[Guest NazMistry]

Their near-simultaneous acquisition of nuclear weapons was the best thing that could have happened to India and Pakistan, if not to the rest of the world.

I hope your joking.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No, I'm not.

[Guest NazMistry]

No, I'm not.

Explain.

[Guest Some Guy]

Ok, so India wanted to be let go and left alone adn Pakistan wanted the same, right?  How is this Britain's fault?  You could just as easily attribute the problem to the conquerers of the land, the Moghuls or to the rediculous religios infigthing between the two.  Kasmir is mostly Muslim with 1 Hindu thing, why not let the Hindus freely visit their place and give the Muslim populated area to Pakistan?  Oops! Common sence in a religious debate, my bad.

I'm not at all religious so I don't understamd why these people are so God damned stubborn and unwilling to comprimise, but this shit is just stupid.  2 major wars in 50 years over a small piece of land, is a waste of time.

The only answer to this is, it's not that simple.

The hatred is so extreme, it's beyond the point of peaceful negotiation between the two countries alone.

The thing with Britain being faulted was that they did not understand the delicate balance that had been maintained between Hindus and Muslims.

So when the British drew out their plans for gradual withdrawl from India, they did not realise they had to deal with both at the same time. And when they at first ignored Muslim citizens, the seeds of paranoia between the two faiths were planted.

I know it's not that simple but it is that trivial. To paraphrase George Carlin, "Do you beleive in God?"

"No."

::Bang::

"Do you believe in God?"

"Yes."

"Do you beleive in my God?"

"No."

::Bang::

 

Britian got out like Ghandi wanted, now you retroactively blame them for the inadequecies of India and Pakistan's governments and maturity. Doesn't seem to fair to me, as a matter of fact they were probably better off as a colony. Britian kept them from killing each other.

[Guest NazMistry]

Ok, so India wanted to be let go and left alone adn Pakistan wanted the same, right?  How is this Britain's fault?  You could just as easily attribute the problem to the conquerers of the land, the Moghuls or to the rediculous religios infigthing between the two.  Kasmir is mostly Muslim with 1 Hindu thing, why not let the Hindus freely visit their place and give the Muslim populated area to Pakistan?  Oops! Common sence in a religious debate, my bad.

I'm not at all religious so I don't understamd why these people are so God damned stubborn and unwilling to comprimise, but this shit is just stupid.  2 major wars in 50 years over a small piece of land, is a waste of time.

The only answer to this is, it's not that simple.

The hatred is so extreme, it's beyond the point of peaceful negotiation between the two countries alone.

The thing with Britain being faulted was that they did not understand the delicate balance that had been maintained between Hindus and Muslims.

So when the British drew out their plans for gradual withdrawl from India, they did not realise they had to deal with both at the same time. And when they at first ignored Muslim citizens, the seeds of paranoia between the two faiths were planted.

I know it's not that simple but it is that trivial. To paraphrase George Carlin, "Do you beleive in God?"

"No."

::Bang::

"Do you believe in God?"

"Yes."

"Do you beleive in my God?"

"No."

::Bang::

 

Britian got out like Ghandi wanted, now you retroactively blame them for the inadequecies of India and Pakistan's governments and maturity. Doesn't seem to fair to me, as a matter of fact they were probably better off as a colony. Britian kept them from killing each other.

But there wasn't anywhere near as much killing before Britain arrived, and Britain wasn't exactly the best at keeping it's guns on it's backs when they were in India.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Explain.

Think you're ever going to see a third full-scale war break out when each capital is a mere 1.5k miles and 4 minutes away from complete annihilation? Their missiles are mobile, mounted on old Mirages and Jaguars. Neither India nor Pakistan will ever again go beyond petty skirmishes across the so-called Line of Control. The people there are incredibly stupid, but they aren't that stupid.

[Guest NazMistry]

I see your point, but i'd rather they continue petty skirmishes without there being Nuclear missiles available.

The use of nuclear weapons is very, very unlikely, but I'd feel better if they weren't there at all.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Petty skirmishes could, and have in the past, spilled over into full-scale wars. I feel better knowing they have the very motivational reason of self-preservation to avoid it. God knows they don't mind killing each other.