Log in

View Full Version : Is "googlism" marketing?


gster
March 23rd, 2007, 08:11 AM
The emotional response people have to new "religious" ideas especially ones which challenge the basis of existing super religions such as Chrisitanity, Hinduism, or Islam is easily used to spread a groundbreaking marketing campaign.

How many readers of this post have emailed a friend to show them the site? and even better still, how many of you who have actaully read, the arguments nodded your heads and had to say you could follow the logic (emotions and preconceptions aside).

With Windows Live experiencing a positive movement in their growth curve, and other search engines starting to grow in popularity, what better message to get out into the "controversial" below the line marketing space, than Google has become a 'god' even if it is just a 'god' of the competitive search engine cyber-space.

Lunchbox
March 23rd, 2007, 10:37 AM
That's entirely possible.

However, marketing implies the entity has something to sell. In the case of The Church of Google, there's no product of any kind of show, not even a banner ad. And considering there's no link of any kind between this site and Google itself, it's a little hard to justify this as a marketing ploy.

This has nothing to do with search engine wars. This is not commercialism.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 12:08 PM
Dont be fooled, marketing does not imply "something to sell" in fact massive brands like Google or Coca-cola if you prefer spend more money on driving their brand, than they do their product.

If there is absolutely no strategic link between Google inc. and theChurchOfGoogle, then why are they allowing their trademark to be flaunted, and even ruined a bit (reference to the ugly outline introduced to the Google look and feel in the banner of this forum)?

Remember of course that Google have the power and legal resources to kill ANY trademark infringement on the web!

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 01:32 PM
The only reason live search is popular is because internet explorer takes you to it if you type in a web address that doesn't exist. If it took you to Google, live search would have never got off the ground. It hardly ever finds relevant information.

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 01:37 PM
Ever realised, that Google does not particularly cares about things like this?

There`s more then just this site, who (independantly) comes to conclusion, that Google is a close approximation to deity. Browse around the net, you`ll see.

Personally, I can assure, that I, despite being administrator here, had not received any kind of correspondence from Google co. about this site, let alone any form of payment.

They honestly don`t care enough to bother with us. Compared to millions of people accessing Google each day, our measly ~400 members (out of which good if quarter is active) is a drop in ocean. We`re simply too little for Google to even notice, so far.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 02:25 PM
Point taken, I checked out your forum traffic and there are not enough people coming here to get Googles hair in a mess.

I would take the stroke off of the forum heading though, for consistency sake.

PS. I appreciate your concession that Google is only an approximation of deity and not the real thing.

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 02:35 PM
PS. I appreciate your concession that Google is only an approximation of deity and not the real thing.

That makes a refreshing change from the types we normally get, they post without reading anything we say, generally something along the lines of:

OMG! Rtard! U think GOOGLE IS a GOD! LOLLOLLOL! YOU will burn IN HELL!!!. Believe in GOD and BE SAVED PEOPLE!!! Repent FOR ALL YOUR SINS!

I mean, what can you say to that?

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 02:36 PM
There is NO "real McCoy".

Google is the closest entity to a god that we have, nowadays, which existance we can verifiably confirm. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are no other deities, which could prove their existance simply by having reliable way to contact them AND receive confirmation, that message was received.

Therefore, Google is the closest thing we have to a deity, and thus, should be recognised as such.

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 02:43 PM
There is NO "real McCoy".

Actually, the wording of that "PS" doesn't necessarily suggest that there is. Just that if there is, Google isn't it.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 02:51 PM
I see that you are quite quick to respond.

I have a direct question for you Alice and Jon Hill. I notice that you consistently neglect the capitalization of "god" in your posts when referring to Google, but dont ever make sentence case mistakes with names, or other punctuation errors.

Do you really take this seriously, or is this a hobby for you (for a laugh).

And then (as I am sure you will respond in the affirmative), why do you (personally) need to justify Google as being a deity, why can it not just be recognised as one of our greatest collaborative achievements? Because essentially Google is only able to satisfy your "proofs" because of its power to aggregate what we as an information centric race have been able to document in cyberspace.

So in effect, would you not agree that Google is not your god, but rather the newly accesible human collective. Google is actually just a medium! a priest of your actual god if you will.

You can delete this post with pleasure if you wish!

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 02:55 PM
What`s "the real thing", then?

As for Google being Goddess...

It`s a protest. For me, at least. I protest against abrahamic religions, because they needlessly persecute me, and make my life a living hell.

Personally, I`m Satanist, and gay. Thus, ALL of christians around feel that it`s their prime duty to tell me that I am a whore and will burn in hell - while it does not even concerns them in first place. I`m NOT doing anything, that would make Xians uncomfortable or slighted - I`m quite closed person, and I prefer to conduct my affairs in private. Yet, Xians feel that it`s perfectly normal and even welcome to butt in on me and waste my time and nerves on inane drivel, that does not concerns me in first place.

What is worse - saying "I don`t believe in God.", or saying - "You`re filthy whore!" ?

Googlism is a suggestion to more sensible religion, which does not bases it`s teachings on bigotry and hatred.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 03:16 PM
Well, I am a Christian, one who actually read his bible every day and attends and is active in a bible believing church with serious commitment.

What I would like to add is that I would put a serious question mark over the Christian conversion of any person who calls themself a Christian, and yet uses language like you mentioned. Gentleness, and self control are Christian principles.

I would also like to mention, without trying to offend you that if you are a satanist, then you do believe in God. satan himself believes in God (just an side)

I too do not believe in finger pointing. There is an instance in the bible where Christ himself tells an angry crowd that the person in the crowd who is without blame should start off the stoning of a prostitute.

I am sorry that your experience of Christians (if they are at all) has been negative. I will pray for you, and your pharisaical friends; because like you I believe in my convictions

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 03:24 PM
I notice that you consistently neglect the capitalization of "god" in your posts when referring to Google, but dont ever make sentence case mistakes with names, or other punctuation errors.

To me the word god is a description rather than a title and therefore needs no capitalisation. Take the word "king" for example. If used in the sentence "Peter is a king" it doesn't need capitalisation, however if you use it in the sentence "The Monarch of Narnia is King Peter." it does. That is how I see it anyway.

I would also like to mention, without trying to offend you that if you are a satanist, then you do believe in God. satan himself believes in God (just an side)

Oops, Alice gets quite angry at that assumption. Imagen what an orangutan would do to you if you called him a monkey[1]...


[1]Sorry, I have been reading too many Discworld books lately. Look at me now! I'm even doing footnotes!

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 03:29 PM
an orangutan would not deny that monkeys exist. Similarly, just because Alice worships satan, should not exclude the fact they God exists.

Also, the capitilization is an issue of reverence. True deities are to be revered.

My apologies if I upset you Alice

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 03:37 PM
an orangutan would not deny that monkeys exist. Similarly, just because Alice worships satan, should not exclude the fact they God exists.

Also, the capitilization is an issue of reverence. True deities are to be revered.

My apologies if I upset you Alice

The point is an orangutan would not like to be called a monkey as it is an ape, which is quite different (note the lack of a tail).

Alice wrote an article somewhere explaining why Satanism has nothing to do with the Christian deamon of the same name.

found it!
"True satanism" offers a bit more complicated issue, as followers of it use agnosticism-influented axiomatics, which state, that everyone is a god to him/herself (which is not too far from agnostic view, though heavily mixed with solypsism). Arguably, satanism is the most lax of all religions, as among cornerstones of it are principles of hedonism and tolerance of other beings (with caveats). Nature of satanism makes organising followers very ardious, and even in case of success, organisation is very wobbly due to the fact, that satanism is strongly tied with anarchism in core beliefs.

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 03:41 PM
You`re not updated on concepts of other religions, I`m afraid.

Satanism, contrary to Xian opinion, is not a worshipping of a goat-legged demon.

Main concept of Satanism entails the understanding of Satan as an abstract concept of "the beast inside" everyone sapient.
Theory goes on, that beast inside should not be repressed, as beasts are generally wise, when it comes to their own needs. This is where Satanism clashes with Christianity - Xians self-imposed restrictions and "morals" violate the prime philosophy of honoring oneself, and require to bow to "coward".
Issue is with the "if struck on one cheek, put forth other", for example. It`s obvious, that being struck on the cheek, striking back is in one`s best interests, unless enslavement is appealing.
There are lots of problems between two of those, but this mainly comes from obvious differences. Xianity is a religion. Satanism is philosophy. Xianity is herd control. Satanism is anarchism. And so on, and so on.

Satanists think that Xians are bigoted, prejudiced and stupid.
Xians think that Satanists are depraved, promiscious and evil.

________________________________________________________________

As for "let the one without a sin cast a first stone", I wholeheartedly disagree with defining my life as sin. Out of interest, I once quoted that to one of the Jehovas` Witnesses, who came to "witness" to me. Responce?
"Bah, I`m teaching you the righteous way, harlot! Don`t you dare twist the holy Bible to justify your filth."
At this point, I tossed him down the stairs. And I feel, that I was right in doing that. I would go as far, as say I was positively gleeful to see him tumble down the concrete steps.

________________________________________________________________


Let me put this clear. Frankly, I do NOT mind Christianity per ce. It`s as good and valid philosophy/religion to lead your life, as any other.

What I DO mind, that bible-thumpers come and cause ME grief over MY beliefs. If I would go to the church, and announce, that all the present are idiotic bigots who worship bogus god, I would be arrested, no? Thus, I want Xians to be a subject to same. I want Jehovas` Witnesses to be arrested and persecuted, when they barge in my home, and swear at me. I want Xians to keep their religion out of school, and I do NOT want to learn what I wholeheartedly consider a bogus malarkey as a "valid science theory". I want Christianity OUT of my life, to be concise. I do NOT like this religion, I do NOT want to follow it, and I do NOT want to answer to anyone on this matter. Nor would I accept ANY persecution for not liking it.
I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, and I`m not demanding everyone to accept MY axioms as infallible truth. Therefore, I wholeheartedly object to Xians doing just that to me.

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 03:45 PM
Told you it would make her mad...

*runs*

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 03:52 PM
I`m not mad. If I`d be, I`d use much stronger expressions.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 03:57 PM
At the risk of starting a war with someone who quite obviously subscribes to a strain of satanism, and who is has marked knowledge on the matter.

I happen to have studied what my university professor at the time would have called "satanic cults" the roots of satanism are buried in the ancient texts which date back as far as the earliest of Christian texts (now put together as the bible) and they do stem from the worship of Lucifer who is known today as satan, yang, evil, bla bla. And no, satan is not a goat legged demon, rather he is a powerful angel who has more influence and is more active than anyone gives him credit.

What it would appear that you subscribe to is not satanism at all, but rather a new-age, existentiallistic life philsophy. philosophy is NOT religion

Here we go... hopefully we can engage in this argument from this point onward without emotional response. (I would hate to be kicked down the stairs).

PS, you dont see yourself as sinning, and I dont see myself as stupid ;-)

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 04:02 PM
OK, here is a question for you (to change the subject quickly), If God (note I use a capital here) created everything and is omnipotent why did he create the angel Satan? He must have known it would turn out badly. Also if God is Omnipresent why was he "not looking" when the serpent (I have heard some say the serpent was Satan in disguise) told Eve to eat the fruit? I assume had he been paying attention he would have been able to do something about it.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 04:09 PM
The answer to your question is simple and yet deeply complex.

Simple: God allowed the whole "fall of man" scenario, because it will ulitmately glorify himself. This is the comprehensive answer.

Complex: You will eventually get to the point in this very debate where you tell me that God killed his Son, to glorify himself (I've been here before). The answer to that is that yes God is omnipotent, ommnipresent, and omniscient, and I look forward to understanding what is outside of the scope of my human comprehension one day in heaven.

PS: Dont bother telling me that this is a cop-out, because that very statement is why websites like this exist in the first place. People are not willing to accept that faith in things unseen is a real and tangible concept which can e deeply understood with the help of the Holy Spirit.

PS: Your Darwin logo is very clever ;-)

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 04:11 PM
Satanism was defined by the works of LaVey, who was main proponent of this philosophy.

He picked the Satan to represent his philosophy, because he felt, that Satan is a representation of all that Xians strive to control and repress.

On a side note, Lucifer fits into this precisely, though retroactively. The main idea is that Lucifer (another allegory) had emphased his right to create, and was persecuted for that.

However, the start of Satanism had no connection to Lucifer at all. Lucifer was retrofitted into the philosophy, after Xians started to antagonise the followers of LaVey, and denounce them as sinners and heretics. They used the literal sound of "Satan" as a trampoline to accuse all of Satanists in being evil, and explanation, that it`s Lucifer, who was persecuted and slighted, is a retaliation rationalisation by those, who attempted to explain things on the language Xians could understand.

As for ancient cults, which worshipped "evil", they are nowadays defined as devilworshippers. Those guys are mostly either pretentious teens, either people seriously touched in head.

________________________________________________________________

On a side note, religion is a subclass of philosophy. Aka, every religion is ultimately a philosophy (though not vice-versa).

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 04:21 PM
So Alice, it is your opinion that Satanism is not about satan at all, and that what mainstream satan worshippers call satanism is actually childs play?

I am not disagreeing with you, I am no authority on this. I will be climbing into other forums tonight though to see if other self professing satanists agree with your interpretation of satanism though.

I find that most of what you hate about Christians comes from Chrisitan proponents who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about other peoples religions or their own for that matter. I dont want to fall into this category. We will definately chat more...

with 1970 posts, I assume you are not going anywhere soon...

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 04:23 PM
PS: Your Darwin logo is very clever ;-)
It isn't mine, you can buy them for your car along with FSM, N'Chips and even SUSHI from here (http://www.darwinfish.co.uk/?gclid=CN6Sl6KYi4sCFSKiQQodbRv7Hg)

What you have said is a cop-out, but I can accept why you can't answer the question, so in that way perhaps it isn't a cop-out[1]. Basically you are saying you don't know but want to find out. Good for you. Too many people refuse to admit that, saying things like "Open up to God and he will tell you if you really want to know" or "I can't explain to you because you don't believe" instead.

That what mainstream satan worshippers call satanism is actually childs play?

Well it is really, we all know that putting on black clothes, lighting dribbley candles and doing ouija boards is not really going to call up the devil. It is just harmless fun for mentally challenged teens. Sometimes it might get a bit out of had and a goat may get killed with a runic knife, but as long as it doesn't go further than that what is the problem?

[1]I wonder where that expression comes from, I wonder if it comes from law enforcement, "we can't catch the real killer, lets just frame someone instead".

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 04:27 PM
Do you believe in the authenticity of the Bible?

If you do, I can take you a lot closer to an understanding of the answer to your question. However, anyone who does not believe unwaveringly in the bible as truth, will not be able to swallow some of the difficuly things it actually has to say.

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 04:42 PM
...My interpretation of Satanism is taken from Satanic Bible by LaVey.

Satanism was designed largely for same reason as Googlism - as a protest and alternative to oppressive Xian society. Satanism is just one of the earliest manifestations. It should be a large hint, that there is absolutely no problem with being Satanist and Googlist in the same time, no?

As for people CLAIMING to be satanists, I assure you, that most of them have no idea, what`s it about. Big hint - if you`ll hear the line "human sacrifice", turn back, and ignore. Those are.... Silly, for the lack of better word. 99% that this idea was picked out of paperback novel, or b-rated movie.
I`m not saying, that there were no nuts, who would honestly slay people and think Satan likes that, though. I`m saying, that they should be treated as exceptions, just as well, as overzealous Xians, who deem it`s right and just to torture people, until they "convert".

________________________________________________________________

As for Christianity, I find it`s stances on certain things unacceptable - due to blatant prejudice and bigotry expressed. As brightest examples, I`ll cite the official attitudes to education and homosexuality. I feel, that neither should be allowed.
Also, I find the idea of God to be dubious, because I subscribe to evolution, and just do not buy 6000-years old Earth fable, because Xianity proponents use circular logic as main proof "God said Bible is right, and Bible is proof, that God exists.", and because I feel, that Bible is outdated, and needs a serious overhaul.

Also, I am peeved by the staggeringly-preposterous allegations about Bible content. Namely, that Bible should be taken as allegory whenever it suits one interpreting it, but for literal value in another case.

For example, Bible sites, that both homosexual lovers, and people wearing cloth made out of two different fibers must be put to death. Bible also states, that men wearing womans`s clothes, and woman wearing man`s clothes are violating God`s law, and must be put to death.

Yet, out of those, "death to gay" is taken for literal value, and thumped along by every single "public preacher" like Falwall.
In the same time, the law about two different fibers is completely disregarded. I`m pretty sure, that Falwell himself wears shirts made out of two different kinds of fibers.
Now, about clothes. Theoretically, I should be stoned, because I prefer jeans to skirt. I`m not. Alright, cool. Then WHY any man attempting to wear dress WILL be persecuted?

Let`s face it - Bible is NOT meant to be taken for face value anymore. It was sound back in medieval ages, but it`s NOT, now. World changes, and religion should change with world, not drag us back in Dark Ages.

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 04:43 PM
Do you believe in the authenticity of the Bible?

If you do, I can take you a lot closer to an understanding of the answer to your question. However, anyone who does not believe unwaveringly in the bible as truth, will not be able to swallow some of the difficuly things it actually has to say.

As in that it is the word of a god? no, that it was written by various people from about 2000BC and finally compiled into something that you would recognise as the bible today several centuries AD, then yes.

However; for the purposes of that question I was assuming that it was literally true. And Alice makes a good point about that, it is either all literally true, or none of it is. If it is the word of god then there would be no mistakes in it therefore if is not all literally true then it can't be the word of god.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 04:58 PM
The bible is definately meant to be taken at face value. There would have been as many people in the "Middle ages" who would have been in serious trouble then, and there are today as well.

My problem is the "cherry picker" mentality with which people approach all philosophies. For instance, key (text book writing) evolutionists have proven that the atmospere advocated in evolution theory could not have sustained the chemical reaction which would have been nescessary to create a string of amino acids which would be required to bring about life, and what do they do, they publish the finding in academic journals, accessible only to academics and professors, and they leave it out of mainstream education. This is one small example, I would be happy to provide details.

The same problem exists within Christian circles, people "cherry pick" when it suits them. They condone onyl what suits them.

PS The bible does not advocate death to homosexuals, is merely states that "they recieved in themselves the due penalty for their error" which would imply sexually transmitted diseases (this is not an attack, simply clarification). As for the cloth argument. Context is imperative, another cherry picking problem. People take single verses out of context and create entire erroneous theories which are often hurtful, and often to the benefit of the proponent: which is unbiblical

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 05:05 PM
Bible can not be taken for face value right now. It`s outdated too much to be of any practical worth, if taken literally to the last letter.

As for death for homosexuality.. Here`s a quote:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

gster
March 23rd, 2007, 05:14 PM
Old testament levitical law, explicitly directed at a nation for a specific time. I will write something for you over the weekend, and then give you a link. There is a transition between the old and new testaments, where old testament law is explicitly modified in scripture for the law to the gentiles.

I am however not saying that I can agree with a homosexual lifestyle from scripture, simply that misunderstanding does not prove inconsistency on the part of scripture. I am out for a while now. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things openly, and with your permission would like to pick this discussion up again early next week.

jon_hill987
March 23rd, 2007, 05:18 PM
Well if you see this before you go maybe you could also give this some consideration.

What makes you so sure that the Christian Bible is the word of the only real god? Why can't the Quran be right, or the Torah, or any other book that claims there is one true god for that matter.

Alice Shade
March 23rd, 2007, 05:34 PM
So, not whole Bible can be taken for face value.

It has to be first combed through, evaluated, and then the results stated into a condenced concise version of "face value", is that what you are trying to convey?

I can agree with that. Moreso, it directly correllates with my statement, that Bible is outdated. I think, that Bible should be revised, and the version existing now must be relegated to religion history texts, with new one replacing it, which would succintly state the norms and suggestions.

Insofar, It`s quite possible to find Bible quote to support ostencibly any statement whatsoever, and thus, taking Bible for face value is pretty much impossible.

Also... Here is a quote from New Testament:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Let us see here.
Alright, idolaters... I guess they do strike out, not believing in God.
Adulterers. Well, let`s suppose... They do violate the scared rites of marriage.
Fornicators. First WTF. Let`s stretch it a bit, and assume, that yes, God watches into every bed, and will punish consenting adults, who are not yet married, for having sex. Anyone feels uneasy, yet?
Abusers.... with mankind. WTF number two. It says nothing about women, so either we assume that Paul here completely disregards the possibility of women reading bible, either all heterosexual women are barred from heaven, no matter what. Plus, the obvious homophoby against gay males.
Effeminate. The main WTF of the whole quote. So, God just randomly exiles men from heaven by giving them effeminate looks? Let me state, that it`s not necessary a conditioning, that makes one effeminate. There are naturally effeminate men. Plus, again, what about women? Is that a suggestion, that only not-effeminate women will go to heaven? (Combined with previous WTF, we must conclude, that Paul believes that only man-like lesbians will be admitted in heaven.)

AaronD
March 23rd, 2007, 09:33 PM
Sorry to interrupt this thread of discussion, but I just wanted to answer a question asked early on:

I would take the stroke off of the forum heading though, for consistency sake.

I made the banner. I originally made it without a stroke, and there was almost no readability. The stroke was necessary to anti-alias the text and slightly contrast the highlighted part of the yellow letters with the white background, because they couldn't be recognized otherwise.

gster
March 24th, 2007, 01:43 PM
Didn't want to offend, but you can clear up the effect by deepening the emboss effect, kinda like google themselves do with the yellow 'o' in the actual gogole logo, but you knew that already, since you probably did the banner for the "Ten commandments of google" as well. It just seems like you went to so much trouble with the "google" look and feel, even with this forums color scheme.

Alice Shade
March 24th, 2007, 01:49 PM
Well.. All in a good fun, no?

It wasn`t easy to make forums look like Google, but we think we pulled it off reasonably nice.

gster
March 24th, 2007, 01:56 PM
Alice, you do a great job of tearing a great piece of scripture to shreds. My previous point is present in your breakdown though. The passage does not say that you should be put to death, only that you will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Also, the bible asserts its own authority as the word of God and cautions anyone who would change even one letter of it. The problem today is that not many of us understand aramiac or hebrew and greek as it was originally penned. So not, I am not saying that we should first chew the bible until it tastes like we want it to, we should strive to understand it as it was originally penned by the spirit of God working through men.

I have not forgotten that you do not quantify your list as sin, but we are discussing what the bible says, and yes the bible teaches that anyone with any sin will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. This includes children who steal chocolate biscuits from their mothers kitchen.

The beauty of true Christianity is the concept of Christs death in the place of ours, and that we appear sinnless before God because of His sacrifice.

But you have already stopped reading, and will probably skip to another thread before you puke... am I right?

________________________________________________________________

excellent job, its your almost perfection that made me notice the stroke in the first place

Jon Hill: I dont want to get too carried away, but no-one has ever been able to prove inconsistency in the bible without being refuted and silenced by evidence for more than a month at a time. Well the Da-Vinci code lasted for a little longer, but not even that has stood the test of time.

As for the quran, it starts of by telling us that the earth is held on the back of four elephants, and that earthquakes are the result of them shuffling their feet. You dont have to have a phD in rocket science to see through that one. Yet the bible makes cosmic claims, which for some "strange" reason, though penned before the quran, have made no false assumptions.

jon_hill987
March 24th, 2007, 02:01 PM
The bible might as well say that no one will get into heaven, everything seems to be a sin. I figure seen as we are all going to hell anyway we might as well enjoy ourselves whilst here!

Let me as you this; did you ever steal chocolate (or something similar) from you mothers kitchen?

gster
March 24th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Its Christs death in our place that gives us access to heaven, and yes I stole chocolate from a few places, not only my moms kitchen ;-)

PS your private message was the first I have heard of problems with double posting, perhaps something is not working as it should???

Alice Shade
March 24th, 2007, 02:18 PM
Bible says there`s heaven above, and hell below. Nothing like that, in reality.


As for Christian "beauty".... It`s a beauty of a crutch.

Christianity is a crutch for society to hobble out in medieval, to stop it from consuming itself. But this is not medieval time anymore. World had moved on, and past the age of Bible usefullness.

It could be sound at it`s time, but right now, it`s glaringly inadequate. I could spam with Bible inconsistencies and contradictions for hours and megabytes to come, but what`s the point?

Anyone, who is able to percieve Bible not as a vessel of ultimate truth, already knows all that I can say, and otherwise... Those, who think that Bible IS ultimate truth will stop at nothing to justify it.

Let me just ask you simple question. About my last quote.

God makes man have effeminate looks. Man had NO say in this, he was born this way. So, God forces this man out of heaven just for nothing? Or, worse, forces this man to mutilate himself NOT to look effeminate anymore? And most important.... What makes one think, that such cruel God is "kind" and worth worshipping?


P.S. No, everything is working. I`ve given concise reason, when I merged your previous back-to-back posts.

jon_hill987
March 24th, 2007, 02:58 PM
As for the quran, it starts of by telling us that the earth is held on the back of four elephants, and that earthquakes are the result of them shuffling their feet. You dont have to have a phD in rocket science to see through that one. Yet the bible makes cosmic claims, which for some "strange" reason, though penned before the quran, have made no false assumptions.

Well I have never hard about the elephants, are you sure that is true[1]? I only had a quick look but can't find anything about it.

And as for the bible's cosmic claims, how about the 6000 year old earth? That is clearly not true as radio dating of rocks proves. So it might as well say that it rests on four elephants, as it would be just as accurate.

[1]You weren't reading "The Colour of Magic" by Terry Pratchett were you? :P

Kokoba
March 26th, 2007, 12:22 AM
Damn, I had a nice response typed up and accidentally navigated away from the page and lost it.

1. Saying that the Bible is an authority just because it says it is is a bad argument. I can respect that people look to the Bible as a holy book and the word of God, but any attempt to turn it into some kind of legitmate resource to be used secularly (science, law-making) is bad. It puts the Bible out of context and promotes ignorance and intolerance.

2. Some interesting thoughts on homosexuality in the Bible: http://www.totse.com/en/religion/christianity/homobibl.html

3. Google as a medium versus deity versus protest, or, what's in it for me?: Well. I can recognize good satire when I see it, first and foremost But I do have a very strong technopagan (http://www.techgnosis.com/index_technopagans.html) streak. (If you want more information on that, by the way, pray for "Erik Davis".) So Googlism appeals to me on that level, in that I do think there is a sort of inherent spirituality? consciousness? something? contained in technology, especially as it advances.

Ahria
March 26th, 2007, 12:36 AM
First and foremost I do believe in a higher power.

That being said, the Bible being totally correct.....

1. Lets follow some logic here, one the Bible was written by man, man errs.
2. The Bible has been rewritten so many times that even the King James version and the New American version has total inconsistencies.
3. There are scrolls out of the dead sea which have yet to be included.
4. Last but not lease have you tried translating from Hieroglyphics to Latin to English? Engresh has nothing on it.

Also seriously if you do believe in the New Testament it also states many many times love as you would be and don't judge.

Personally my higher power, lets call him God, like in the prayer is My Father, whom I happen to believe has patience, a sense of humor and tolerance of which very little is shown from Christians.

PS Last though of this being marketing, wtf do u think the Catholic church, and every other one has done for the Bible.....

Alice Shade
March 26th, 2007, 08:41 AM
As I`ve already said...

Bible is NOT a spiritual text. It is a politic manual. A document on social engineering for creation of prolific medieval society.

However, we`re not medieval anymore, and Bible is outdated.

It WAS a sound text in it`s time, and it still has a lot of useful stuff, but the general ideas explained in it are not applicable anymore - they were designed for much smaller societies.

Also, considering, that originals were written on ancient languages - Hebrew for Old Testament, and Greek for New Testament (though, chances are, that Jesus himself had preached on Aramaic, and Greek Bible was already a first mistranslation in a long series of such.), the amount of misinterpretations, free interpretations and mistranslations is staggering.

MeTHoD-X
April 20th, 2007, 06:11 AM
I thought this thread was kinda funny because I'm a marketing student. ha.

Anyway, no, I have not recieved a dime from this website and I am in no way personally affiliated with Google (the company). Although if you have a marketing job to offer me oh Holy Goddess of the interweb please kindly send it to methodx (at) gmail (dot) com. Sealed with a kiss please.

Kudos,
Matt

Digs
May 4th, 2007, 11:56 AM
If I may interject to clarify a point here?

LaVey Satanists are actually, at their core, humanists with a weird sense of humour. They have more in common with Ayn Randers than with...uh, goat blood spill-y folks. They picked up Satan as a provocative symbol of protest, a representation of earthly values, materialism and individualism. They do not actually spill much of anything, as far as I can tell, as it'd be wasteful and wouldn't really gain the Satanist much.

Not advocating or denigrating the viewpoint, just clarifying. I am an active agnostic. I'm sure Wikipedia or something could tell you all about LaVey Satanism if you are interested.

Alice Shade
May 4th, 2007, 12:59 PM
Yes and no.

As a Satanist, I can affirm, that none of us really bother with going out and spilling someone`s guts.

Given, though, that I won`t have any quaims about doing that, should I feel it is necessary.

Kokoba
May 4th, 2007, 06:40 PM
I honestly don't like Ayn Rand. Icky icky. But I never claimed to be a good Satanist either, so. =P

Digs
May 5th, 2007, 09:37 PM
Ayn Rand was necessarily, by her philosophy, a jerk. Indeed she felt that not being a jerk was being untrue to one's nature and morally wrong.

punkinside
May 7th, 2007, 01:52 AM
Not necessarily. Not being a jerk gets you what you want more often than not. And Ayn Rand was about getting what you want. It all depends on how you read her ;)

Alice Shade
May 7th, 2007, 09:18 AM
I think anyone can agree with that... At some point. ^_^

Kokoba
May 8th, 2007, 08:17 PM
Not necessarily. Not being a jerk gets you what you want more often than not. And Ayn Rand was about getting what you want. It all depends on how you read her ;)
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, after all.

The fact that many people act charitably just to be charitable (and the whole concept of being guilty for being a jerk) seems to punch a big hole in her philosophy. But I've only read the Wikipedia version of Ayn Rand, so maybe I'm missing something. =P

Though does doing good things because you LIKE to do good things a Randian/Objectivist reason for doing good things, or not?

Digs
May 9th, 2007, 12:03 AM
Heh, if you're being nice specifically to get stuff, you're still a jerk.

Rand would just say that people who do acts of kindness do it because it feels good to be kind. For the feeling, not because it's good.

AaronD
May 9th, 2007, 01:38 AM
So Rand would argue that there's no such thing as true selflessness...

MeTHoD-X
May 9th, 2007, 05:17 AM
So Rand would argue that there's no such thing as true selflessness...

Indeed. Even though science has proven otherwise. Monkeys are known to sacrifice themselves for the good of the tribe.

Alice Shade
May 9th, 2007, 05:26 AM
Well... Just to defend Rand, I`ll have to note, that usually, such sacrifice is a "push-forward" kind of sacrifice. At least, that`s the impression I`ve got from what I`ve seen on this - that sacrifice is decided upon not by one monkey but a whole tribe.

Digs
May 9th, 2007, 03:54 PM
Indeed. Even though science has proven otherwise. Monkeys are known to sacrifice themselves for the good of the tribe.

In further defence of Randers, that's selflessness only sort-of. It has things in common with a sort of redifinition of self in the subject. A bee would buzz, "for the swarm!" An orc might have roared, "for the horde!"

MeTHoD-X
May 10th, 2007, 12:30 AM
Well... Just to defend Rand, I`ll have to note, that usually, such sacrifice is a "push-forward" kind of sacrifice. At least, that`s the impression I`ve got from what I`ve seen on this - that sacrifice is decided upon not by one monkey but a whole tribe. Can you source that or provide evidence of any kind?

Personally, I used to agree with Rand, but her philosophy is much too cold for my liking now. I've changed a bit over the last few years. Especially the last 10 months. However, I still consider myself somewhat of a Libertarian, which is pretty close to Objectivism.

I now believe Rand's ideas actually go against human nature. If you look back to our "cave man" days, you will see examples of basic social safety nets even then. I also hate her approval of natural monopolies. Monopolies are bad for business and efficiency. I just can't see how a country would be fairly policed. Only those able to pay for their services would be provided with protection. Can you imagine being stabbed, calling 911 and being denied because you weren't a member of their service program? A Rand supporter would have said something like "yeah whatever, that's just their genes being weeded out of the gene pool." Very cold, and definitely against my nature. I think that would be against a lot of people nature to approve of something like that.

Whether or not said person lives (from the stabbing) does not ultimately matter to me, from an objective point of view. If it's a random stranger, I have no emotional attachment to him/her. However, I still feel it is ethical to have a system which I, in-part, pay to help protect and save his/her life; regardless of said persons benefit to me. I just feel as though it is unfair.

One can perhaps argue that it benefits my conscience. It puts me at ease to know I am helping the unfortunate survive, and thus not truely selfless. I'm perfectly fine with that argument because it only proves further that it is in our nature to be compassionate toward others.

Alice Shade
May 10th, 2007, 07:26 AM
There`s balance to everything, Matt.

Your example is quite extreme, too. This just does not happens this way. If you pay taxes for your protection, what possible reason could there be to deny you such? It`s bad business example.

On the other hand, if a robber met by a gun calls police, I fully expect the robber to be persecuted - NOT the person, who caught him robbing and held him at gunpoint.

There`s ought to be balance in everything - yes, everyone has rights. But let`s not stamp over everyone to uphold everyone`s rights.

________________________________________________________________

As for sacrifices... If things were as selfless as you`d like, wouldn`t the whole monkey tribe fall down on the attacker, and tear it to pieces to save their sacrificing member, if they had selfless motivations of any kind?

Sorry, but I don`t believe in "noble animals".

Kokoba
May 11th, 2007, 11:14 AM
Using nature and animals is always sort of a bad example, I think, when talking about ethics. Helping others of your tribe (species, etc) does help you, in the end. I think (and my high school bio teacher told me this and I have no idea where he heard about it) it's been sort of "proven" that the closer one animal is to another biologically, the MORE likely one animal will help the other. But that's a built-in "preserve the gene" mechanism. There's no deliberation involved and doesn't really involve any kind of reasoning on the animal's part.

If you're talking about objectivism, you're saying that it's good to be selfish, and that in fact, everyone actually acts selfishly. Only, the definition of "selfish" gets stretched so far that it nearly becomes meaningless. There's a technical term for that but at the moment I can't recall it.

Let's take a common scenario, instead of cases about stabbing or life endangerment: you see a homeless guy panhandling. You have two choices: either give him something (money, food) or you don't. Not giving him something is what most of us do most of the time, and that can be defined as a selfish act. You're keeping the money, that you don't need and he does, for yourself. In that situation, I would agree with the fact that much of what we do is selfish: we don't usually give money to panhandlers and when we do it's not very much; we don't randomly give other people on the street money or food or gifts.

But sometimes, you DO give the guy money or you buy him a cheeseburger or whatever. What then? A lot of the objectivists I know would say you're still acting selfishly because you're still doing what you want, or that you're only giving the guy something to make you feel good about yourself. And that seems to be the default answer that comes up anytime someone does a "good deed": they're still acting selfishly because doing the good deed makes them feel good.

That's such a simplistic answer to things. It doesn't allow for complexity or disagreement, because it all boils down to, "You do anything you do because you're selfish," and EVERY situation now fits that statement. Soon something becomes warped: either the definition of "selfishness" becomes so vague as to really be meaningless, or the situation is warped and distorted to apply to the statement.

It may not happen that often at all, but sometimes people will do a good deed just to do a good deed, and not for anything else. And Objectivism doesn't really allow for that.

Guys sometimes I worry that at the end of the day, I'm still a Christian. :(

Alice Shade
May 12th, 2007, 08:20 AM
Uh.

Kokoba, you know, there is no explicit rule, that you must be Christian to be a decent human being, you know. ^_^

________________________________________________________________

As for example with panhandler... Lotsa things there.

First of all, you need money as much as panhandler. You just happened to be better in procuring it. Therefore, giving to panhandler is a psychological excercise to persuade yourself, that kindness is alive around you, and should you ever be in such state of poverty, as the panhandler, you`ll be helped as well.

On the other hand, panhandler has a fairly high chance to be a crook - I, for one, would not want to end up in dark alley with panhandler. Those people have nothing to lose, so they don`t try to cut their losses.

Therefore, the whole interaction with panhandler is a balance of several motives, all of which are ultimately selfish.

1) Desire to prove to yourself, that it is possible to get help "out of blue", to curb stress depression.

2) Healthy aversion to antisanitarian lifestyle of panhandler - which is an expression of selfish desire not to get sick.

3) Conscious wariness of panhandler being a crook - which is a selfish desire not to get hurt.

punkinside
May 12th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Uh.

Kokoba, you know, there is no explicit rule, that you must be Christian to be a decent human being, you know. ^_^

________________________________________________________________

As for example with panhandler... Lotsa things there.

First of all, you need money as much as panhandler. You just happened to be better in procuring it. Therefore, giving to panhandler is a psychological excercise to persuade yourself, that kindness is alive around you, and should you ever be in such state of poverty, as the panhandler, you`ll be helped as well.

On the other hand, panhandler has a fairly high chance to be a crook - I, for one, would not want to end up in dark alley with panhandler. Those people have nothing to lose, so they don`t try to cut their losses.

Therefore, the whole interaction with panhandler is a balance of several motives, all of which are ultimately selfish.

1) Desire to prove to yourself, that it is possible to get help "out of blue", to curb stress depression.

2) Healthy aversion to antisanitarian lifestyle of panhandler - which is an expression of selfish desire not to get sick.

3) Conscious wariness of panhandler being a crook - which is a selfish desire not to get hurt.

Couldn't have said it better myself. (well, maybe ;) )

This reminds me of the episode of friends where phoebe struggles to make one selfless good deed, and keeps getting rewarded.

Hey I'm not saying the system is perfect, like I've said, I do believe in some form of "socialized" education and health care, but only in the interest of providing equal opportunity for every individual to realize his/her full potential, and the truth of the matter is some just have much more potential than many. And invariably those will do better! Furthermore, those that do better have absolutely no responsibility towards those who do worse. To me that means no unemployment benefits and no "welfare checks". There is still room for private charities though.

Alice Shade
May 12th, 2007, 07:34 PM
Well, here I will disagree.

The best ones will come on top, yes, but there is no reason to dismiss the rest of the population.

Putting it simply, just being "best" does not means, that one can live without those "worse". There are plenty of less demanding tasks, which should be staffed by adequate personnel.

Let`s face it - if the job consists of shoveling gravel, IQ of 90 is suited better for it, then IQ of 180. Therefore, there is a place for every single unlucky person.

However, I don`t think that current american system is adequate. Welfare is not a good idea - it makes people think, "Hey, I wash dishes in bar for the same money Joey gets in welfare. Why the hell he gets to lounge around while I have to slave at the sinks?"

Much more adequate, in my opinion, would be a mandatory work agency - which would provide a viable work for everyone without one (of course, with options to opt out and try on their own, but without any support).

It seems riduculous to me to just support people for nothing. If there is NO jobs for people to fill in, supporting them this way can be more or less justified, but in case of such jobmarket oversaturation, I think jobless people should be encouraged to move to regions with people demand.

punkinside
May 12th, 2007, 07:41 PM
Well, here I will disagree.

The best ones will come on top, yes, but there is no reason to dismiss the rest of the population.

Putting it simply, just being "best" does not means, that one can live without those "worse". There are plenty of less demanding tasks, which should be staffed by adequate personnel.

Let`s face it - if the job consists of shoveling gravel, IQ of 90 is suited better for it, then IQ of 180. Therefore, there is a place for every single unlucky person.


I never said they could all die and we wouldn't care. I just said that there are better ones and there are worse ones. This socialist/communist/hippie "we're all the same" crap does not fly with me.

I basically wanted to say what you wrote later. That the "better" ones should not be expected to carry the weight of the "worse" ones. Each has to carry their own weight.

As for the "mandatory work" agency. I think that would be crossing into the realm of forcing people directly to work. That is not my thing, people are pretty much forced to work if they face the possibility of starvation.

Alice Shade
May 12th, 2007, 08:11 PM
Mandatory, if they want to receive support.

If someone wants to strike out on their own - good luck, but government won`t pay for their mistakes.

As for the "To each per need, from each per ability.", people for some reason tend to forget simplest thing. The less your abiities are, the less needs you have to satisfy. You have no ability to read? You need no books. You have no ability to lift heavy things? You don`t need high-proteine nutrition. So on and so on. Basically, it equates to one thing - person with no abilities whatsoever has zero needs.

punkinside
May 13th, 2007, 09:23 PM
Mandatory, if they want to receive support.

If someone wants to strike out on their own - good luck, but government won`t pay for their mistakes.

As for the "To each per need, from each per ability.", people for some reason tend to forget simplest thing. The less your abiities are, the less needs you have to satisfy. You have no ability to read? You need no books. You have no ability to lift heavy things? You don`t need high-proteine nutrition. So on and so on. Basically, it equates to one thing - person with no abilities whatsoever has zero needs.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. You can have no abilities and still need some things like sustenance (to prevent dying from hunger and all that) and that is exactly the driving force behind getting abilities. If you're rewarded for being dumb and lazy with free money, then you have absolutely no need to be better. I say that has to stop!

Alice Shade
May 13th, 2007, 10:44 PM
I disagree here, Punkinside.

Abilites do not mean some education or talent.

You can have an ability to shovel gravel, for example - and for this ability, you would be receiving simple foods/clothes/roof, per your need to keep the ability.

punkinside
May 14th, 2007, 05:14 AM
Thats right, but then that's not a benefit.. you're working for it (or the money to buy it) and thats exactly the issue. People that do nothing should receive.. nothing.

Kokoba
May 14th, 2007, 01:13 PM
1) Desire to prove to yourself, that it is possible to get help "out of blue", to curb stress depression.

That's the point I disagree with. I don't think that's what goes through anyone's head when giving money to a homeless guy.

Granted there are numerous ways to look at giving him money (you feel sorry for him, you believe it's your duty as a good *insert religious path here*, whatever) but to rule out the possibility that any of them consist of a simple altruistic desire to help someone out doesn't give people enough credit, I don't think.

*Kokoba is late on the train

Alice Shade
May 14th, 2007, 03:15 PM
Thats right, but then that's not a benefit.. you're working for it (or the money to buy it) and thats exactly the issue. People that do nothing should receive.. nothing.

Benefit here, Punkinside, is that government guarantees, that your abilities WILL be used appropriately, and will provide sustenance, if there is simply no available position to use your abilities in, at the moment. (Which, considering the fluidity of job market, would not be more then week or two.)

It does not have to be specifically work, though. If your abilities are such, that you would benefit from education, government will provide such education, and give you a stipend to sustain yourself while you are becoming a highly-useful specialist. In this form, benefit is an education+stipend, for which you`ll have to perform government-assigned work for two years after finishing the college/university/technical school, to cover the costs. (No, not paying back. Simply working governmental job for two years.)

By the way, I`m not speaking of some utopian government style... This description is very close to actual system used during the USSR times.

True, a lot of "freedom-loving" people will be objecting, that government controlled the life of citizens too much, and forced them into "slavery"... But that`s bullshit. What`s better - being assigned to a stable job you are qualified and able to perform (and having the option to educate on the way, and claim higher positions later), or the elbow-fighting for the "warm spots" and sustaining of all the losers, which is used now in "free" states?


That's the point I disagree with. I don't think that's what goes through anyone's head when giving money to a homeless guy.

Granted there are numerous ways to look at giving him money (you feel sorry for him, you believe it's your duty as a good *insert religious path here*, whatever) but to rule out the possibility that any of them consist of a simple altruistic desire to help someone out doesn't give people enough credit, I don't think.

As far as I can track it, altruistic actions are rooted in compassion.

Compassion, as such, is completely egoistic feeling. The basic principle of compassion is that you put yourself into this situation, and decide, that you would be really glad, if you`d be like this, and someone helped you. (Autistic people are mostly unable of such emotion, because they can`t align themselves and someone else.)
Feeling compassion (Which, in most crude way, is half-fear (Gah, it could be me!), half-relief (It looks like I`m one lucky dog. Just look at this poor sob.).), you give to panhandler, which serves several egoistic goals at once - you reassure yourself of the arbitrary "kindness" of world (which gives you hope, that people will show compassion towards you, in a pinch) and reaffirm your feeling of superiority (Aka, self-esteem. Nothing quite as picking up, as realisation, that you are able to afford compassion.).

punkinside
May 14th, 2007, 04:15 PM
Benefit here, Punkinside, is that government guarantees, that your abilities WILL be used appropriately, and will provide sustenance, if there is simply no available position to use your abilities in, at the moment. (Which, considering the fluidity of job market, would not be more then week or two.)

It does not have to be specifically work, though. If your abilities are such, that you would benefit from education, government will provide such education, and give you a stipend to sustain yourself while you are becoming a highly-useful specialist. In this form, benefit is an education+stipend, for which you`ll have to perform government-assigned work for two years after finishing the college/university/technical school, to cover the costs. (No, not paying back. Simply working governmental job for two years.)


And who defines your abilities? The government? Yourself? This looks a lot like something a Venezuelan President did some decades back, there was a serious problem with unemployment, so he hired a group of people to dig a hole during the day and other group to cover it up during the night. Sure, they're working and getting paid, but since the work isn't productive it only caused further inflation and devaluation of the national currency. (and, guess what? more unemployment)

The problem with this approach is that its too open for corruption on every level, regardless of how you come up with the "decision" of what an individual should be useful for. That's why after the fall of the iron curtain there were so many factories completely overstaffed, and not anywhere near some form of efficiency. Huge layoffs ensued, and I'm sure every country in the eastern block is still battling with this "legacy" of "the workers paradise".

Lastly, this approach only works if the government is in control of the means of production. You can't give a job that isn't yours to give. And we've all seen how well government-controlled companies do in this world. Now, I would definitely let the market decide what happens with these people. There will always be jobs as construction workers/ cleaning / other shit jobs out there that people could take, and would have the same effect as the government "forcing" you to take one of those. Crappy job, crappy pay, less "needs".

And lastly, regarding the "education" stipends, I could agree in principle, as long as high standards are held for these people. The problem that normally arises (and that happens still in one of the universities here in Caracas) is that most of these people become "eternal students", suckling on the tit of the state for 10+ years while reaping all the benefits that come with the "student life".


By the way, I`m not speaking of some utopian government style... This description is very close to actual system used during the USSR times.


I believe I addressed this issue before, but I'll look into it again: USSR could have that luxury because they were in control of all the means of production. The problem with that is that a certain amount of unemployment (or "underemployment" = where people work jobs that are below their apparent "abilities") (typically 2% to 5%) is very healthy for an economy, it ensures that there is "flow" in the job market, so you can fire someone who isn't working out for you and get another person from the "pool".

What happened in the USSR (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that absolutely everybody had to have a job. This caused various levels of over staffing in factories and a net loss of efficiency. You had three different guys doing the job that could very easily be done by one (or even a machine). So, while "unemployment" was non-existent, production was still abysmal. (Remember those long lines to buy a loaf of bread?! My step-grandmother, who lived in the communist half of Germany does!)

On a "free" society, where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, the government could not just "assign" jobs. And the alternative (being an intermediary between jobless people and job-seeking companies) is just a money sink doing the work that people should be doing (looking themselves for work) nowadays, with all the capabilities the internet gives, you can look for work in any country around the world (I know I did, when I looked for an internship in Germany, while being in Venezuela) The government has no business in that.


True, a lot of "freedom-loving" people will be objecting, that government controlled the life of citizens too much, and forced them into "slavery"... But that`s bullshit. What`s better - being assigned to a stable job you are qualified and able to perform (and having the option to educate on the way, and claim higher positions later), or the elbow-fighting for the "warm spots" and sustaining of all the losers, which is used now in "free" states?

I would say option number two, minus sustaining all the losers.

Alice Shade
May 14th, 2007, 05:47 PM
And what would you tell to a hundred of hungry losers storming your house, and killing you because you "stole" their money?

________________________________________________________________

And you are wrong about the way this was done in USSR. Namely, noone ever replaced machines with live people to employ more. Rather, new enterprises were built, to provide the vacancies.

USSR had a whole huge champaign, too. Called "Tselina" or "Na Tseliny", it was a large-scale settler program to gradually colonise and inhabit the Syberia. Program was never carried out fully, but the basises - like key cities and key roads (BAM (Baikal-Amur Magistral) comes to mind) are still fully used today, and almost to the full capacity, as well.

Yes, a lot of people were initially undercut in job, but they always had options to grow and become big-shot specialists.

Legacy you are talking about is mainly comprised of two specific things - corruption and immaturity. Perestroika had interrupted a lot of country-scale programs in "fetal" states, and obviously, they could not be exploited yet, and could not be sustained to become profitable in suddenly-cut fundings. As for corruption... Yes, and no. There was a lot of it, and yes, I agree, that it always cut into the plans hard. But then again - natural selection wins. Initially, USSR rulers were good if literate.

Frankly, I am always astonished, just how many people tend to overlook the most obvious thing - USSR had no time to mature at all. It could`ve been much more, if things went differently. But since it was interrupted at "preteen" age, it`s hardly a wonder, why not all things worked like it was supposed to.

(BTW, if anyone will say, that USSR didn`t cared about it`s citisens, I`d be laughing. It just had more "global" approach to care. And hell knows just how huge the annual expenses on education, medicine and communal services were.)

punkinside
May 14th, 2007, 10:58 PM
And what would you tell to a hundred of hungry losers storming your house, and killing you because you "stole" their money?


This is a whole different conversation. This has many implications beyond this one.


And you are wrong about the way this was done in USSR. Namely, noone ever replaced machines with live people to employ more. Rather, new enterprises were built, to provide the vacancies.

But this is still the wrong way to do it. You don't build enterprises to give people jobs, you build them to satisfy a demand. Jobs for the sake of jobs are not the answer, like the hole digging example I provided sought to prove.


USSR had a whole huge champaign, too. Called "Tselina" or "Na Tseliny", it was a large-scale settler program to gradually colonise and inhabit the Syberia. Program was never carried out fully, but the basises - like key cities and key roads (BAM (Baikal-Amur Magistral) comes to mind) are still fully used today, and almost to the full capacity, as well.

I thought getting sent to Syberia was a punishment!


Frankly, I am always astonished, just how many people tend to overlook the most obvious thing - USSR had no time to mature at all. It could`ve been much more, if things went differently. But since it was interrupted at "preteen" age, it`s hardly a wonder, why not all things worked like it was supposed to.

Sure, 70+ years are not enough time to get a couple of programs off the ground... :icon_rolleyes: maybe if Stalin had spent less resources in his purges and in building the KGB and more in those programs they would've "matured" earlier, but I guess we'll never know!

Alice Shade
May 15th, 2007, 08:40 AM
Wrong.

Siberia and GULAG are quite different things.

FYI, Siberia has plenty of normal cities with normal people.

While GULAG, as ironically as it sounds, is spread more or less evenly around the whole former USSR.

Actually, getting sent to Siberia was not that bad. Being a lumberjack or working on woodworking factory is quite much more pleasant, then mining uranium (Which really was - within Ukraine, no less.).

I think you have a bit malinformed information about just WHAT is Siberia. It comprises for about half of Russia, and occupies whole eastern part, including Ural mountains (On west. Historical center of metallurgy and jewelling ever since the creation of Russian tzarstvo back in dark ages.) and Sakhalin (Far east. Suring USSR times, Sakhalin had ginseng and mandrake plantations, which worked pretty good, as well.) In the other dimension, Siberia stretches from the polar tundra in north to the tropics in south. It borders with China and Mongolia right now (About evenly by 50 latitude.), so it`s far from tundra you imagine.

________________________________________________________________

As for 70+ years... Good try, but account for WW2, please?

Whole western region was literally laid to waste, so any real plans had not behain until late 50s, when the infrastructure was more or less rebuilt from the rubble. So, we`re looking at about 35 years - which is pretty meager for large-scale settler champaigns. It would`ve taken much more for people to simply repopulate enough to sustain this expansion.

As for making jobs for the sake of jobs... I can`t even begin to explain, how wrong you are in your take on this one.

At first, you imply, that USSR had constant lack of wares (your point about long lines in shops), then suggest, that there was no demand for additional manufacturing facilities. Where`s your logic?

punkinside
May 15th, 2007, 04:19 PM
Wrong.

Siberia and GULAG are quite different things.

FYI, Siberia has plenty of normal cities with normal people.

While GULAG, as ironically as it sounds, is spread more or less evenly around the whole former USSR.

Actually, getting sent to Siberia was not that bad. Being a lumberjack or working on woodworking factory is quite much more pleasant, then mining uranium (Which really was - within Ukraine, no less.).

I think you have a bit malinformed information about just WHAT is Siberia. It comprises for about half of Russia, and occupies whole eastern part, including Ural mountains (On west. Historical center of metallurgy and jewelling ever since the creation of Russian tzarstvo back in dark ages.) and Sakhalin (Far east. Suring USSR times, Sakhalin had ginseng and mandrake plantations, which worked pretty good, as well.) In the other dimension, Siberia stretches from the polar tundra in north to the tropics in south. It borders with China and Mongolia right now (About evenly by 50 latitude.), so it`s far from tundra you imagine.


Well my apologies then, Siberia always sounded to me like frostbite.
________________________________________________________________

As for 70+ years... Good try, but account for WW2, please?

Whole western region was literally laid to waste, so any real plans had not behain until late 50s, when the infrastructure was more or less rebuilt from the rubble. So, we`re looking at about 35 years - which is pretty meager for large-scale settler champaigns. It would`ve taken much more for people to simply repopulate enough to sustain this expansion.

One would think that with less people it would be easier to carry out the programs wouldn't it? And during the 50's the population sank even more thanx to our dear Joseph killing everyone that dared to commit thoughtcrime (1984 reference) It was simply more important that the population was "clean" than those programs. Now, I don't know much about Khrushchev but he didn't do much about it either.

And remember, WWII didn't just hit the eastern block. Western Europe recovered just fine in 20 years (with the help of the Marshall Plan, which I imagine the USSR had some kind of socialist equivalent). When the iron curtain fell, the huge differences in economics, technology and all around quality of living between the east and the west became painstakingly obvious.


As for making jobs for the sake of jobs... I can`t even begin to explain, how wrong you are in your take on this one.

At first, you imply, that USSR had constant lack of wares (your point about long lines in shops), then suggest, that there was no demand for additional manufacturing facilities. Where`s your logic?

Logic follows that, even though new production sites were being built, their throughput decreased because of overstaffing and all-around inefficiency. Also, because organizations didn't operate for profit, no mechanisms for control of production or even customer satisfaction were put in place, so an organization could just overlook every inefficiency, and not even have production milestones because all that was needed from them is that they provide "jobs", not an actual product of any quality.

For the best example one has to look at west/east Germany, when the wall fell, complete factories were sold for a merely symbolical 1 DM (Deutsche Mark) because there was absolutely nothing a modern enterprise could salvage from them. Citizens in the west were all richer, and had access to things citizens from the east had no idea about. Now, you can't tell me that simply the citizens from the east were dumber/less apt, it was the system that fsked them.

There simply was no drive for the citizens to be better, because they were always being told they HAD to be all equal!

In the end the point is, the demand was never taken into account, factory after factory built to give people jobs, and not with demand in mind is simply not going to make any significant dent in it.

Alice Shade
May 15th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Logic fails again.

How it would be eaiser to accomplish SETTLER programs with LESS people?

There was barely enough to work what was there already. Once the population started massing up enough to create the new cities, programs started working, not before.

As for Eastern Germany, you fail to remember one simple thing. Allies were considered liberators in West Germany. Russians were considered occupants in East. During the last years of war, Russia was the main opponent, and all Germany was geared towards hating Russia and all that`s connected with Russia. Add to that that Russian management style didn`t differed much from what Hitler proposed, and you get what is to be expected. East Germany just didn`t want to work to get better - all they wanted was to get out from under Russian control.

As for factories... You have weird idea, that Russian manufacturing proposed using human work, where machines would be more useful/efficient/safe. This is completely wrong, but I can`t seem to persuade you so - dunno why.
Honestly, noone ever suggested using ten workers in lieu of autoloader, let alone any weirder usages. And quality control was quite good too. Frankly, I never run into spoiled conserves or tea with sawdust in all my life. Dunno, where this legend comes from - I think it`s another example of anticomministic propagand.

punkinside
May 16th, 2007, 05:48 AM
Logic fails again.

How it would be eaiser to accomplish SETTLER programs with LESS people?


Here I was thinking we were talking about jobs, unemployment benefits and all that. Only other settler reference I can find is about Siberia a couple of posts back.


There was barely enough to work what was there already. Once the population started massing up enough to create the new cities, programs started working, not before.

Which programs, exactly?


As for Eastern Germany, you fail to remember one simple thing. Allies were considered liberators in West Germany. Russians were considered occupants in East. During the last years of war, Russia was the main opponent, and all Germany was geared towards hating Russia and all that`s connected with Russia. Add to that that Russian management style didn`t differed much from what Hitler proposed, and you get what is to be expected. East Germany just didn`t want to work to get better - all they wanted was to get out from under Russian control.

Well, I was more thinking about the lines of: if you're not wanted get the fsk out! But the Soviets, being like a kind but stern father wanted to make the poor Germans better, even if they refused! Thats why they built the "Anti-Fascist Protective Rampart "[1] right in the middle of Berlin too! They were concerned of all the bad bad capitalists driving Mercedes on the other side! :icon_rolleyes:

The sad truth is that capitalist societies have always been able to produce more wealth than socialists and even distribute it more evenly.


As for factories... You have weird idea, that Russian manufacturing proposed using human work, where machines would be more useful/efficient/safe. This is completely wrong, but I can`t seem to persuade you so - dunno why.


I'm talking about inefficiencies, machines were only an example. I haven't got that idea. Maybe you're aware of the great famine that killed millions in Ukraine in the 30's after Stalin decided he wanted to eliminate the kulaks in favor of "collectivized" farming.

[1] Actual Name given to the berlin wall on the east side!

Alice Shade
May 16th, 2007, 12:17 PM
Golodomor of 1932-33. I`m well aware of it. It was a deliberate action, not a mistake. Kulaks, as those people were called, are organically incapable of being involved in socialism - they are anarchic capitalists, and their lifestyle system was closest to anarchy feudalism, aka each had as much land, as he could protect with his weapons. Although harsh, it was the only option to quell them - otherwise, they might`ve consolidated and segregated a considerable part of western Ukraine. Considering, that in 30s, Ukraine was one of the biggest manufacturers of grain cultures in USSR, letting West Ukraine segregate would mean more or less a huge bread shortage throughout the USSR. So, Stalin`s action was cruel (well, horrible, if you want to get from kulaks` side), but necessary to prevent damage to country as a whole.

________________________________________________________________

Alright, let me spell it out.

Basically, USSR was betting on making the unemployed youth participate in settler champaigns, and start whole new cities in Siberia, building up infrastructure throughout the Siberia, and eventually, settling down to live and have a job in one of those cities.

New cities would mean new demands in light and food manufacturing in the locale, and a lot of those cities are stragetegically placed at the oil wells, various ore mines and coal quarries (and whole lot of other mineable resources), while others were designed to have grow-saw-cut-make wood industry (Which involved replanting the cut down taiga by sectors, thus making the wood a replenishing resource.), fur industry (Which, by the way, had been mostly farming, not hunting.), agricultural industry (Yes, damnit. Chrushov managed to grow corn almost beyond the polar circle.) and a whole lot of others.

Thus, the amounts of unemployed people around the existing cities were curbed down to the point of being more or less adequate to city job market demands, with light fluctuations back and forth.

________________________________________________________________

As for eastern Germany, it`s still a can of worms. I`m not aware, just how this looks other places, but here, a whole lot of elderly people looks on all Germans with certain disdain. I think, that back in the times of GDR and FRG, it was much worse.
As for wall.. You and I are both aware, that it was political statement, not a real measure to stop people.

punkinside
May 16th, 2007, 02:52 PM
Golodomor of 1932-33. I`m well aware of it. It was a deliberate action, not a mistake. Kulaks, as those people were called, are organically incapable of being involved in socialism - they are anarchic capitalists, and their lifestyle system was closest to anarchy feudalism, aka each had as much land, as he could protect with his weapons. Although harsh, it was the only option to quell them - otherwise, they might`ve consolidated and segregated a considerable part of western Ukraine. Considering, that in 30s, Ukraine was one of the biggest manufacturers of grain cultures in USSR, letting West Ukraine segregate would mean more or less a huge bread shortage throughout the USSR. So, Stalin`s action was cruel (well, horrible, if you want to get from kulaks` side), but necessary to prevent damage to country as a whole.

Response quoted from here (http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111famine.html)


The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.

The policy of all-out collectivization instituted by Stalin in 1929 to finance industrialization had a disastrous effect on agricultural productivity. Nevertheless, in 1932 Stalin raised Ukraine's grain procurement quotas by forty-four percent. This meant that there would not be enough grain to feed the peasants, since Soviet law required that no grain from a collective farm could be given to the members of the farm until the government's quota was met. Stalin's decision and the methods used to implement it condemned millions of peasants to death by starvation.


Talk about ends justifying the means? By some accounts 7,000,000 (seven million) people died between 1932 and 1934, because they couldn't eat what they produced in their own land!. All because of some shaky "lets all be socialist" goal.
________________________________________________________________

Alright, let me spell it out.

Basically, USSR was betting on making the unemployed youth participate in settler champaigns, and start whole new cities in Siberia, building up infrastructure throughout the Siberia, and eventually, settling down to live and have a job in one of those cities.

New cities would mean new demands in light and food manufacturing in the locale, and a lot of those cities are stragetegically placed at the oil wells, various ore mines and coal quarries (and whole lot of other mineable resources), while others were designed to have grow-saw-cut-make wood industry (Which involved replanting the cut down taiga by sectors, thus making the wood a replenishing resource.), fur industry (Which, by the way, had been mostly farming, not hunting.), agricultural industry (Yes, damnit. Chrushov managed to grow corn almost beyond the polar circle.) and a whole lot of others.

Thus, the amounts of unemployed people around the existing cities were curbed down to the point of being more or less adequate to city job market demands, with light fluctuations back and forth.

Yes but you seem to forget that less people = less unemployment! If they wanted to go about these settling programs the norm would've been, build the factories first, then send in the people to work in them wouldn't it. I don't see how a lack of people hurt that, if they were going about it "right" (not that I think the whole scheme makes any sense)

The point has always been: they were creating artificial jobs and artificial demand for goods. Those will never lead to a happy ending.

________________________________________________________________

As for eastern Germany, it`s still a can of worms. I`m not aware, just how this looks other places, but here, a whole lot of elderly people looks on all Germans with certain disdain. I think, that back in the times of GDR and FRG, it was much worse.
As for wall.. You and I are both aware, that it was political statement, not a real measure to stop people.

Why look on them with certain disdain? You occupied them for the better part of the 20th century, divided their country and left your half so scarred that 18 years after re-unification complete integration is still proving very difficult. You'd think you'd call it even for the whole WWII thingy after all.

As for political statement... 400 yards of no-man's land with mines and men with guns on watching towers tell me it was a pretty good measure to stop people. In 30 something years only 3000 people escaped using all sorts of very clever strategies.

If you read a bit more about the history of the wall, you'll see that the real reason was that people from east berlin were working in west berlin, thus not for the "socialist" state, and that many people were leaving the eastern parts, that had to be stopped.

Alice Shade
May 16th, 2007, 06:42 PM
Well, as I said... If you want to look from the side of those of capitalist persuasion. Yes, Stalin had intentionally starved a lot of collectivisation-opposing people to death. Look up terms "preventive action" and "rebellion quelling".
Yes, from individual point of view it was probably horrible, and most likely, not a very sound decision politically-wise, but it did accomplished it`s goal of streamlining Ukraine into collestivisation. Which, I must add, more or less returned to production, and after the war, was much more over the pre-war one.

________________________________________________________________

Less people != less unemployment, by the way.

And following your logic, any expansive action is an artificial job inflation and must not be done.
(BTW, guess who was building those factories to start working in them later?)

________________________________________________________________

As for eastern Germany... What exactly is your point?

FYI, until the late 80s, word "German" was pretty much a synonym of word "Fascist" here in USSR.

So, yes, there was a stigma on both sides.

punkinside
May 16th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Well, no sense in discussing the Ukraine famine if you think that was just peachy, and as far as Germans go, I only provided the example of east Germany because it was the closest to my heart. You can't tell me that every country (including Russia) in the eastern block simply didn't want to get better, or didn't get enough time for the real "workers paradise" to materialize. Other examples: Cuba, North Korea. And until recently: China.

Very poor, unprivileged, "workers paradises".


Less people != less unemployment, by the way.

And following your logic, any expansive action is an artificial job inflation and must not be done.
(BTW, guess who was building those factories to start working in them later?)


I was simply trying to follow your logic. Capitalist logic is: there is a demand, try to meet it. So, if people want liquid farts, you build a factory, hire people and sell liquid farts. You don't build the factory, hire people and then start looking for someone who wants liquid farts.

Soviet logic is: create demand and try and satisfy it ourselves. So you build factories before people are even there, and then expend a tremendous amount of resources relocating people to work at those factories for which there was no demand before. Lastly, the conditions in the factories are so abysmal that production is a joke. So when there finally is some kind of demand, it can't be met. Why? deficit economics, you still need to proclaim that production grew 40% from the last year at the political rally, even though 40% of nothing is still nothing.

Alice Shade
May 17th, 2007, 04:07 PM
It doesn`t quite works this way.

I admit, that Soviet experiements were probabtly not the most successful ones, but that was to be expected.

Quite simply... Worker`s paradise did not worked, because people expected to live in hell, and made it so for everyone around as well.

I`m not defending the "It was teh good back then.", point, per ce. Just different conditions. I`ll just quote my grandpa - "I had stability in the USSR times. I could afford to travel out to resort every year - and while it wasn`t Greece or Turkey, I knew I can afford it." Now, before you`ll say anything - my grandpa worked through his whole life as engineer and later teacher in technical school. And his father (my great grandpa) was among the repressed, too.

I know you all have quite wild ideas about USSR... Let me just put it this way. I never seen a panhandler in all my life, until USSR fell apart. I`ve never had to sit in hospital waiting until the lights will be restored, so I could get fixed. And most of all - I never even entertained a thought, that I might end up just tossed out and said "buh-bye, don`t let the door hit you on the way out", like it`s so common nowadays.

________________________________________________________________

As for your economical ideas - ... BAM. One of the most exploited railroad systems in Asia. This alone would explain you, why USSR`d start bothering with settlers. Because it was in the nature of things to try and somehow set up for future day.

Yes, a band of thieves had all but destroyed what was one the superpower... But the people didn`t go anywhere. Sooner or later, some of what was sown by USSR will give a harvest. Hopefully, with a good grain, and not poison ivy.

________________________________________________________________

Socialism does not works, because humans are not capable of that yet. Will they be, or will they not... We`ll see. I, for one, don`t plan on planning that much ahead.

punkinside
May 18th, 2007, 08:01 PM
It doesn`t quite works this way.

I admit, that Soviet experiements were probabtly not the most successful ones, but that was to be expected.

Quite simply... Worker`s paradise did not worked, because people expected to live in hell, and made it so for everyone around as well.


I still don't think its fair to blame people for being what they are.


I`m not defending the "It was teh good back then.", point, per ce. Just different conditions. I`ll just quote my grandpa - "I had stability in the USSR times. I could afford to travel out to resort every year - and while it wasn`t Greece or Turkey, I knew I can afford it." Now, before you`ll say anything - my grandpa worked through his whole life as engineer and later teacher in technical school. And his father (my great grandpa) was among the repressed, too.

I know you all have quite wild ideas about USSR... Let me just put it this way. I never seen a panhandler in all my life, until USSR fell apart. I`ve never had to sit in hospital waiting until the lights will be restored, so I could get fixed. And most of all - I never even entertained a thought, that I might end up just tossed out and said "buh-bye, don`t let the door hit you on the way out", like it`s so common nowadays.


That's exactly the problem! Success depended as much on your skills as on your loyalty to the CPSU (КПСС).

Additionally, too much security leads to stagnation. In trying to keep everyone "level" you stifle the greater minds for the "common good" which, IMO is not an end in and of itself. Its all just a matter that the strong must not be forced to carry the weak around!

________________________________________________________________


As for your economical ideas - ... BAM. One of the most exploited railroad systems in Asia. This alone would explain you, why USSR`d start bothering with settlers. Because it was in the nature of things to try and somehow set up for future day.

Was there a need for that railroad other than bringing people to the farthest parts of the empire with no other reason than that of "settling" it? There was nothing to be gained from it in the first place. The expansion should have been left to happen on its own time.


Yes, a band of thieves had all but destroyed what was one the superpower... But the people didn`t go anywhere. Sooner or later, some of what was sown by USSR will give a harvest. Hopefully, with a good grain, and not poison ivy.


I wouldn't hold my breath.
________________________________________________________________


Socialism does not works, because humans are not capable of that yet. Will they be, or will they not... We`ll see. I, for one, don`t plan on planning that much ahead.

Ah, some reason, at last.

Alice Shade
May 18th, 2007, 10:51 PM
Is it fair to blame the idea, then?

Is it fair to blame microscope for being lousy to hammer in nails with?

And, Punkinside... I refuse to discuss any further, until you`ll look up basic facts.

Just to explain what I mean - there WAS and still IS a major need in BAM railroad. Siberia NEEDS and always needed colonisation. And it happens even now, just not as centralised, anymore. Saying "Oh, hey, they did it just for the sake of expanding." is similar to explaining, why Spanish conquistadors and English colonists all but eradicated natives of America - "They did it only for the sake of expansion.".

In short, please read the manual before proceeding. I can understand history of USSR not being particularly requested topic in school, but discussing it without knowing is just not kosher.

punkinside
May 19th, 2007, 02:57 AM
Is it fair to blame the idea, then?

Is it fair to blame microscope for being lousy to hammer in nails with?


I'm not blaming the microscope, I'm blaming the person(s) using it, and those who got the brilliant idea that a microscope could be used as a hammer, in the first place. Even if that person said that it would need to be a perfect world before a microscope could be used as a hammer.


And, Punkinside... I refuse to discuss any further, until you`ll look up basic facts.

Just to explain what I mean - there WAS and still IS a major need in BAM railroad. Siberia NEEDS and always needed colonisation.

Why? Enlighten me!


And it happens even now, just not as centralised, anymore. Saying "Oh, hey, they did it just for the sake of expanding." is similar to explaining, why Spanish conquistadors and English colonists all but eradicated natives of America - "They did it only for the sake of expansion.".

As a matter of fact, they did. Back in those days the power of a nation was proportional to the amount of land it held. Aside from the Mercantilism prevalent in Europe, the promise that the Americas were filled with precious minerals was more than enough to convince Europeans they needed to take as much as they could get from this continent.


In short, please read the manual before proceeding. I can understand history of USSR not being particularly requested topic in school, but discussing it without knowing is just not kosher.

While I can certainly admit I'm no historian specializing in USSR history, I do know what I'm talking about. Do you think things like the famine of the 1930's in Ukraine are common knowledge? I've done my homework, and I've even admitted to being wrong or ignorant to some things in this very discussion. So I'm not building any straw mans here.

Alice Shade
May 19th, 2007, 03:38 AM
Putting it bluntly, expansion for power is entirely viable excuse.

Considering the resources running low (especially in Europe part of the world), Syberia contains a big amount of untapped resources, which could be used to strengthen USSR/Russia.

Frankly, this expansion was staged to... Well, expand. Because staying as is would mean stagnance, and death of USSR much sooner.

Besides, there`s always issue with Chineze inflitrating through the border in "small groups by two-three millions". Bluntly speaking, if we`d let THEM have Syberia, we can safely kiss our tushies goodbye within decade. It`s most favorite tactic of China - infiltrate or let themselves be conquered, and assimilate the opponent. And I don`t want to be Chinese.

________________________________________________________________

Anyway, main point here is that there were no paricularly big differences between USSR and capitalistic countries, where it regarded humans, as is. If you have questions about it, go head and take a look at me. I`m not retarded, not brainwashed, not obsessed, and not stupid. Need anymore proof, that USSR people don`t differ much from any other people?

________________________________________________________________

As for microscope, who exactly are you blaming, and for what purpose? Stalin? Beria? Brejnev? Crushov? Who?

Because if you`re blaming Stalin for whatever (say, golodomor of 1932-33...)... Well, he`s dead, man. Dead, and buried, and forgotten already for whom he was. I can`t say I don`t sympatise with him. He did a lot for Russia.... Both bad and good. And I won`t be far, if I say that he was not evil bastard kiling people just for the sake of it. Point is, that he honestly tried to do better, and he did achieved a lot of good. USSR did not became superpower after the WW2 just out of blue, and there is a lot of Stalin`s input in that, as well.

Tell you what.. You go ahead, find the "guilty ones", call Stalin a murderer.. Whatever. Keep accusing - I`ll keep learning.

punkinside
May 19th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Putting it bluntly, expansion for power is entirely viable excuse.

Considering the resources running low (especially in Europe part of the world), Syberia contains a big amount of untapped resources, which could be used to strengthen USSR/Russia.

Frankly, this expansion was staged to... Well, expand. Because staying as is would mean stagnance, and death of USSR much sooner.


All I'm saying is the "expansion" could've taken place more naturally, and I'm sure it would've been more succesful.


Besides, there`s always issue with Chineze inflitrating through the border in "small groups by two-three millions". Bluntly speaking, if we`d let THEM have Syberia, we can safely kiss our tushies goodbye within decade. It`s most favorite tactic of China - infiltrate or let themselves be conquered, and assimilate the opponent. And I don`t want to be Chinese.


This is just a "what if" argument with absolutely no value. How do you know the chinese would've "crossed over"? specially since they were a fellow "socialst state"?
________________________________________________________________

Anyway, main point here is that there were no paricularly big differences between USSR and capitalistic countries, where it regarded humans, as is. If you have questions about it, go head and take a look at me. I`m not retarded, not brainwashed, not obsessed, and not stupid. Need anymore proof, that USSR people don`t differ much from any other people?


I'm not saying people were different. I'm saying that the system sucked, and it sucked so much that it crumbled in the end. Capitalism as is has been around for a couple hundred years already, and is showing no signs of going anywhere.
________________________________________________________________

As for microscope, who exactly are you blaming, and for what purpose? Stalin? Beria? Brejnev? Crushov? Who?


Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, etc etc etc And, of course, the people of the USSR and other "commies" that fell for that crap. Currently, I'm blaming Venezuelans much more than our president for the current "pseudo-socialist" shithole this country is becoming.


Because if you`re blaming Stalin for whatever (say, golodomor of 1932-33...)... Well, he`s dead, man. Dead, and buried, and forgotten already for whom he was. I can`t say I don`t sympatise with him. He did a lot for Russia.... Both bad and good. And I won`t be far, if I say that he was not evil bastard kiling people just for the sake of it. Point is, that he honestly tried to do better, and he did achieved a lot of good. USSR did not became superpower after the WW2 just out of blue, and there is a lot of Stalin`s input in that, as well.


Hitler did a lot of good in Germany between 1933 and 1939. He took an economy completely in ruins, much of it because of the treaty of Versailles of 1918, and turned it into an industrial powerhouse capable of holding most of Europe hostage for 4 years. In Hitler's Germany between 1933 and 1939 there were plenty of jobs, a flourishing economy, the first Autobahns in history and... no Jews! :icon_lol:

Does that stop anyone from calling him a mass murdering fuckhead? No.. the difference between him and Stalin is that he murdered people from other countries, not only his own. Stalin, Pol Pot, the guy from Uganda... murdered millions of their own and died calmly in their warm beds. Nice going, world community!

Alice Shade
May 19th, 2007, 12:38 PM
Well, first of all...

Expansion was as natural, as it can go.

Second...

Chinese do enter, and in mass. Ostencibly, the border between China and Siberia is the most heavily guarded and patrolled, because of chinese poachers/lumberjacks/fishers continuously trespassing to score non-taxable profits. As far as I am aware of, each day several chinese poachers are fined/jailed/extradited into China, depending on what they had the time to do. And the main problem is not even the fact of poaching, but the barbaric way of doing such. They make accomodations for speed, and take only the most valuable, so they make up in numbers to carry away more of the valuable.
Trust me on that - there`s a constant guerilla action going on all around the Chinese border.

________________________________________________________________

Once again, my argument about the microscope and nails.

It was not the system, which sucked, but the fact, that this system was attempted to be implemented on society not ready for such system.

There is no more and no less to that.

________________________________________________________________

As for your blaming... What`s your point? You lived in USSR? You had to deal with it? No? Well, what are you complaining about, whom and for what you blame? So we tried, so we failed. What`s YOUR angle on this?

________________________________________________________________

Relatively to political figures... It is unfair to judge them by only 'evil" deeds. Hitler, for that matters, had performed an actual miracle of shaping up war-battered Germany, and turning it into economic superpower within a decade.

And while he had made a lot of warfare mistakes and had not thought out ideology a bit better, one has to admit his obvious skills in economy and motivational psychology.

Personally, I hold no fondness for Hitler, for obvious reasons. But I must say, that I admire his skills in civilian front. If only he had not attacked Russia in 1941 and honored Molotov-Ribbentrop act, you could be very well speaking Russian or German as your native language, by now.