I think my country was better in communism...

[Tomatketchup]

2) I am Republican. I am also agnostic. Most Republicans are not religious. The idea of less government control and freedom of choices empowers our ideals.

By modern form I meant the crazed God-worshippers who will do anything to get the government to control the wrong things, my mistake for being unclear about that. I can understand that some people don't want more government control, because being for or against big governments is probably the biggest differences in attitudes when it comes to comparing two different countries' politics. I really do wish these crazed-arse Republicans that seem to attach to the Republican party like a giant parasite would just die out, because while I still wouldn't agree with the Republican ideologies, I wouldn't have to worry about that the mightiest country in the world is ran partly by a bunch of rich rednecks.

3) "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

I don't think the US should become exactly like the Nordic countries in terms of politics, but I still believe that the US should at least be able to provide free education and healthcare, it really saddens me when I talk to my American friends that they hate their country because they feel like they have to spend fortunes just to be able to live sometimes.

[mookspal]

By modern form I meant the crazed God-worshippers who will do anything to get the government to control the wrong things, my mistake for being unclear about that. I can understand that some people don't want more government control, because being for or against big governments is probably the biggest differences in attitudes when it comes to comparing two different countries' politics. I really do wish these crazed-arse Republicans that seem to attach to the Republican party like a giant parasite would just die out, because while I still wouldn't agree with the Republican ideologies, I wouldn't have to worry about that the mightiest country in the world is ran partly by a bunch of rich rednecks.

I don't think the US should become exactly like the Nordic countries in terms of politics, but I still believe that the US should at least be able to provide free education and healthcare, it really saddens me when I talk to my American friends that they hate their country because they feel like they have to spend fortunes just to be able to live sometimes.

Well said. I can respect your opinion.

[Syxz]

I guess you haven't seen me post often then, because that's how I've always talked. If my tone upsets you, then there's always the ignore function on this forum. I don't know what's with you people and the whole "you were mean to me so you're losing my respect!" routine. Yeah right.

Well I guess that must be the selective memory at work which a poster in the start spoke about. It is 1-2 months since I’ve read anything here. So I guess you are right, you are just rude. I don’t want to ignore you, I asked you because I wanted to listen to you.
And the whole “you were mean to me so you're losing my respect!” ‘routine’ is quite true. I mean it. Why do people do that? Because what purpose does the aggressive tone serve? Nothing, else than upsetting your fellow posters. It is still humans you’re talking with, even though it is behind a computer. It also seems to me that persons only discussing in aggressive tones are not interested in the debates, they just want to “win”. And that so unproductive. It creates nothing else than fights, at least it don’t create productive debates. Oh, and then there is the guide lines:
“Keep in mind that even though you are sitting behind your computer, you are still having a conversation with a human being.

We do not want to see: Racism, hatred, violent language, threats, real-life threats, insults, extreme vulgar language, flaming, otherwise inappropriate or hurtful language, harassment, grammar policing.”

Says the person deliberately making it personal by arguing about the arguments rather than about the topic at hand. And now I'm skipping down to that red sentence because if that paragraph was any indication, this is going to be just more of you trying to take things personal for whatever reason, and arguing about past arguments. Instead of actually talking about the real topic like you pretend you want to.

Please do stop giving me bad motives. I was NOT deliberately making it personal. I was after answers. Answers relevant to the topic at hand. And I was NOT taking things personally until you started saying I had obsessions, saying that my motive was to argue about arguments, lying about my intents. All I did was summing up a part of this thread in an attempt to show my way of thinking, and why I thought it was so vital to have a definition of human nature before the debate could continue productively. And don’t say I “pretend” making my motives look bad. That a direct lie. I know it’s a lie, because I know my own intentions, you don’t.

What the hell do you take Communism to be?

Why the hell should I give you a definition, when you won’t give me yours, when I asked for it?

If you genuinely wanted to know, you'd be asking and discussing and talking about the topic at hand, which is Communism. Instead the majority of your last two posts are focused around arguing over something as trivially meaningless as "(the internet argument) between (two complete strangers) comes from (my interpretation of what happened)". I have no idea what your "intent" was in kicking up a fuss about that long after the other party has left the debate, but I have trouble seeing anything good about it.

It was not long after Knight Gil last post that I posted my first post. How could I possible know that he/she would not post again? The good about it was that if the part of the discussion about communism had continued, it would have been more concrete, it would have been more qualified, at least if you had provide a definition. It did not, but we couldn’t know. But you don’t believe that it seems. It seems to me you only believe I have bad motives. And I don’t see it “trivially meaningless” since I don’t view it as “(the internet argument) between (two complete strangers) comes from (my[by which you mean me] interpretation of what happened)”. That’s again delegitimizing my intent. And I was discussing the topic at hand, since the topic at hand developed a discussion about human nature, which is relevant to the topic at hand, which is communism.

The fact remains that Knight Gill responded to my post with the claim that human nature does not exist. When challenged for evidence, he failed to provide any, and left. That was the end of that argument.

And what I ask is: How can he provide any, in your view, sufficient evidence, when he does not know the definition you use, of a term that you used before he made his claim?

You're resurrecting it and arguing "when he said it doesn't exist, he actually means something completely different" - which fits arguing for the sake of arguing to a T.

No, I’m not interpreting him. I’m saying he have a hard time supplying you with the answers you seek when you don’t define the frame in which that answer should be given. What you write there is, yet again, twisting my intent, for the sake of delegitimizing my posts.

Either you came out and take up his claim that human nature doesn't exist or stop trying to start an argument about what you think he meant.

I do not argue about what I think he meant, I argue that a useful definition of human nature is needed, before the existence of it that be probably discussed. No useful definition have been made yet, therefore, if the debate had continued, it would have been just as stupid as the last parts. And no, I do not need to any of that by your bidding.


But I think my “quest” is futile. You will not believe my motives. But fear not! I think I’ll take my leave now, no reason trying to speak with people who don’t want to listen to what one is saying, lying about ones motives and use hurtful language. I would only return to this debate, should anyone other ask something of me, or anyone at all lying about my motives. Farewell, I hope you enjoy your “victory”.

[semaphore]

If my posts upset you that much, there's a Report Post link at the bottom right hand corner. Nobody's forcing you to read and respond to me.

Why the hell should I give you a definition, when you won’t give me yours, when I asked for it?

Except I did.

It's a set of psychological and behavioural traits that is regarded to be common to all of humanity, independent of culture.

Don't act upset just because you're confusing the definition of human nature, with examples of human nature. And again, stop trying move the goal post. Knight Gil claimed that human nature doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what constitutes human nature - he has to show that all human behaviour is completely cultural. He did not, and then you came in to move the goal post for him.

And now you're showing your true colours as you devote an entire post to whining about that, instead of genuinely moving on with the actual topic as you feigned to be interested in. What's the point of whining non-stop about "Knight Gil meant this" and "how could Knight Gil argue that", if you are actually interested in having a real conversation? I see one plausible answer for such behaviour.

I do not argue about what I think he meant, I argue that a useful definition of human nature is needed

Yeah right. Selective memory again.

There is no such thing as "Human Nature"

Knight Gil argues against elements he think you include in the term human nature.

He argued that human nature did not exist. You insist on moving the goal post for him into arguing that "these things that nobody actually talks about aren't part of human nature". That you would drag out these posts to move the goal post for him, is what pisses me off the most about you.

You will not believe my motives

Not when you refuse to talk about actual topic, and spends your entire post bickering about an argument on arguing about the topic. If your motives were anything like what you claimed then why do you refuse to actual talking about communism? Instead you went on and on and on about what Knight Gil said.

---------- Post added 2013-01-05 at 08:58 AM ----------

I thought your ridiculously long posts seemed familiar, now I remembered who you are. You were that guy who quoted me saying "it's technically a win for Britain, but in another sense of the word, they didn't really win because they lost so much", and then proceeded to argue about how "but it's technically a win" as though I didn't just say that.