FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) Moral bankruptcy? -
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:46pm)
It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Fri 14th October 2011, 10:46am)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:46pm)
It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist."
It's from Dom Helder Camara, who was a Roman Catholic Archbishop in Brazil.
Who famously wrote a book about the need for revolution in class-struggle, then was offended that people called him a communist. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Perhaps he figured that commies are always violent.
It's always permitted to ask WHY people are poor. But if your answer is only that they are poor because somebody else has taken their wealth away, that pretty much labels you a communist. You've found a "witch" to blame.
Of course, outright theft is sometimes part (in some places even most) of the answer. But on the world stage it's only part of the answer. Wealth isn't created in our modern industrial age by some people simply concentating the weath that was always there, in a zero-sum process. Concentration happens, to be sure, but wealth itself is created by industry and trade. Marx admitted this, but thought that such weath was basically stolen as soon as created, except in the rare cases where people manage to work alone. A very stupid and destructive idea. The syndicalists did much better.
Anyway, Camera didn't really think much about industry and trade. All he did was complain of class-struggle, see theft. I'm tired of these social theorists who don't really understand trade and engineering. Ayn Rand (who went entirely too far in the other direction) is their punishment for not paying attention.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 157
Joined:
Member No.: 19,790
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 12:46pm)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie". It's reminiscent of the Catholic leading figure (I forget his name) who once observed: "When I gave people food, they called me a saint; when I asked why people were poor, they called me a communist." I suggest the latter is because people like to cover up their own moral bankruptcy, but I'm open to correction. Like I said, there are always two or more sides to a story. Maybe.
Huh? So you're saying that if someone tries to articulate two or more sides to a story, then he is "promptly" called a "commie"? Is that what you're saying? Not only is that claim obviously false (I've frequently articulated multiple sides to controversies, and I have never been labelled a "commie" for my trouble), it doesn't even make sense. Communists are not generally known for being even-handed or especially concerned with nuanced, neutrally-stated truth.
And what does this have to do with "moral bankruptcy"? The only thing on these themes that resembles moral bankruptcy would be the behavior of various communist regimes in the last 100 years--than which there has not been any more morally bankrupt, at least in terms of body counts. Is that, perhaps, what you're vaguely driving at?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 1:43pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Are you decompensating or maybe just punch drunk? Red bating at the same time you rave on about "witch hunts" looks like a prize fighter who is just too confused to keep his guard up. Guess what comes next?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 2:33pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 1:43pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Are you decompensating or maybe just punch drunk? Red bating at the same time you rave on about "witch hunts" looks like a prize fighter who is just too confused to keep his guard up. Guess what comes next?
Do you see me blaming communism or Marxist-Leninism for all the evils of the world? You don't, do you? In 2011 the Commies are (finally) irrelevant. They have been for 20 years and are now only an irritation in academic backwaters and little BBS fights instigated by old-guard trolls.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:26pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 2:33pm)
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 14th October 2011, 1:43pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:46am)
Old fashioned pacifists (and even WP:NPOV rules, surprisingly) believe there are always two or more sides to a story, and all significant sides merit equal attention if anything resembling "truth" is ever to be arrived at. Paradoxical thing is, when someone tries to do so (both at WP and at WR), he/she is promptly labelled "commie".
No, you get called a "commie" (and rightly so) when you insist on looking at economics entirely in terms of a giant game of "find the witch." IOW, as a huge web of paranoia. As though a bunch of primitive Amazon tribeman, thinking all bad things in the world are due to evil charms by malignant people, were suddently given the chance to "explain" poverty, inflation, and the national debt. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
You can always tell commies by their lack of understanding of engineering and trade, and their immediate need to find something (anything) wrong with the world and then procede immediately to look for some rapacious and power-abusing person to blame for it.
Are you decompensating or maybe just punch drunk? Red bating at the same time you rave on about "witch hunts" looks like a prize fighter who is just too confused to keep his guard up. Guess what comes next?
Do you see me blaming communism or Marxist-Leninism for all the evils of the world? You don't, do you? In 2011 the Commies are (finally) irrelevant. They have been for 20 years and are now only an irritation in academic backwaters and little BBS fights instigated by old-guard trolls.
You think the world is just hunky dory so long as your own privileged is maintained. Your red baiting (or Shia Baiting or whatever is cheap and easy) seems reserved for anyone who can even envision any other kind of world.
Of course McCarthy's imagined foes didn't cause any evil either. I suppose I might have gone with the "Have you no decency" clip but that a little heavy handed against anyone as ineffectual as you. I like this one of JMcC more and it reminds me of you in the ability to dish it out but not take it. He'd be dead in a couple of years.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined:
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE
Sanger: "Huh? So you're saying that if someone tries to articulate two or more sides to a story, then he is "promptly" called a "commie"? Is that what you're saying? Not only is that claim obviously false (I've frequently articulated multiple sides to controversies, and I have never been labelled a "commie" for my trouble) ..."
Allow me to correct my statement. My own subjective experience does not necessarily hold true for everyone else in every WP topic category. It does, however, hold true to the fact that in the space of a mere two or three months at WR I've been called a commie no less than 18 times (mainly by Roe). That doesn't necessarily bother me; as an ex-wikipedian formerly active at modern military history topics I'm thoroughly accustomed to it (and so are a few others).
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 14th October 2011, 11:10pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
No offense GBG (because I completely understand why you would feel that way), but maybe you guys should recruit some new mods who think judicious moderating could actually improve the place.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE
Sanger: "And what does this have to do with "moral bankruptcy"? The only thing on these themes that resembles moral bankruptcy would be the behavior of various communist regimes in the last 100 years--than which there has not been any more morally bankrupt, at least in terms of body counts. Is that, perhaps, what you're vaguely driving at?"
Okay Mr Sanger. Let's overlook conveniently the fact that the United States is the only country in the world that has ever been found guilty of State-sponsored terrorism. The US ignored the ruling, saying it did not recognise the ruling. See The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, International Court of Justice (ICJ) 1984. (Curiously, the US now suddenly wants Gaddaffi to be brought before the same court that it earlier refused to recognise). Let's overlook also the CIA-backed death squads in Indonesia, which accounted for the deaths of nearly one million civilian suspected communists. Let's overlook also the CIA-sponsored Operation Phoenix in Vietnam that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilian suspected communists. What am I vaguely driving at? I'm driving at the well-established fact that the American WP (and you, apparently) is/are simply unwilling or unable to deal with complexity and diversity, not least of all in the sphere of politics and modern history. In my book, that amounts to moral bankrupcy. If that makes me a "commie", then so be it. Better a commie than a fucking hypocrite.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Sat 15th October 2011, 5:10am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 14th October 2011, 9:20pm)
Why is this in "General Discussion", and why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?
I guess I could move it for you but in all fairness WR bought the farm some time ago. Maybe it the endless debating society of H Anthony and Milton. Maybe the endless waves of the hordes of Wikipedia. My rubbing Molton's face in his own racism didn't help. Neither did your own creep-out obsession with the details of Mr. Wales personal life. But I'll move it to the annex.
QUOTE
GBG: "WR bought the farm some time ago."
So tell me someone, anyone: Who exactly funds / controls WR? Could it be WMR? (Which latter might account for all the eternally meddling and bemedalled wikipedians here: just keepin' an eye on things, ya know). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 270
Joined:
From: Southern Africa
Member No.: 61,155
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
3 letters. Starts with a "C" and ends with a "A". Shhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 4:14pm)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 15th October 2011, 8:03pm)
QUOTE(communicat @ Sat 15th October 2011, 11:29am)
QUOTE
The Kosher: "... why is Communicat killing Wikipedia Review?"
Wow! I'll accept that as a compliment. Didn't know anybody took me THAT seriously. Alternatively, you sure are one insecure SOB.
Why are you still crying about your thread here in the Annex?
I'm not the cry-baby who thinks communicat is intent on "killing WR", and goes running to mods every time the truth hurts. Only thing I'm crying about, Mr Know-All, is your apparent inability/unwillingness to tell me who if anyone funds/controls WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wave.gif)
Funny thing is, the guy you're getting uppity with has a long, long, long history of questioning who "funds/controls WR". Greg isn't in cahoots with the management in any way shape or form.
You, dear Communicat, are just the latest verbose paranoiac to grace us with your presence. One can only hope that you'll get bored or busy sooner or later and give up, but for the time being you've somehow managed to become the life of the party. GBG's point was more or less that a party that somebody like you can become the life of is not a party worth hanging out at (the nearest bar, pub, or tavern would almost certainly be better).
Before you get on your large plastic horse and denounce me: I actually agree with you more often than I do the people you're arguing with, I just don't jump in because I rarely feel the urge to jump in to defend the asshole.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
Moral bankruptcy?, The Butler in the library with the canlestick
