US say they need more time to look for weapons of mass destruction.

[Cutter]

Originally posted by grizz
im sure you know who noam chomsky is thuring, being as smart as you are. he disagrees with your points 1a and 1b in several of his recorded lectures and im sure would suggest such systems have always failed because they have never been allowed to work. who prevented them from working? well im sure i dont need to point that out. but of course your history lessons will never have told you that, and why should you question otherwise...

i am slating both those administrations and many more prior to that as well....

Yep, I've heard of him. The point I was making is, I've studied history, and I try to learn from it. And the message is the same over and over again. Socialism does not work. Human nature being what it is. The past is riddled with the mistakes of communism and socialism. Why do we keep trying to breathe life into a dead and discredited system, only to allow it to fuck up more countries? But that's just my opinion...

Socialist systems have never worked for a few reasons as I see it:

1. Human nature - if everyone is equal, there's no point in anyone exerting themselves. Why strive when u can sit on your ass and let it all come to you. But I've said this before...

2. Ideological conflict with capitalist systems. Capitalism is more about creating wealth. Socialism is more about distributing it. But hey, the less is created, the less you can distribute. But you don't need me to point this out.

3. Capitalist counter-insurgents. But hey, you commies were at it too with us

Whatever the intent of socialist systems, here are the facts about them. History shows this over and over again:

1. Power ends up centralised.
2. Government becomes less accountable.
3. The state takes precendence over the individual.
4. There is monopoly provision of goods and services.
5. Economically, these countries stagnate, then collapse.


The former USSR, Cuba, "Eastern" Europe - these are the extremes of "socialism" - economic collapse, political totalitarianism and lack of human rights.

Did you never stop to think about one simple fact? How many Russians working as spies for the "West" escaped to the West as soon as they got the chance? And how few "Westerners" who spied for the Russians bolted to mother Russia at the first opportunity? Or the number of Chomsky's vauted intellectuals who were prepared to risk their lives to get across the Berlin wall and away from Soviet repression?

The "civilised" proto-socialist nations of "Western" Europe - France, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy. All have goverments of varying shades of socialism, and the same problems are cropping up all over again. Ever more centralised government, ever less political accountability, economic stagnation, bankrupt social security & pension systems (because there are simply too many unemployed people and too few in work to keep uninvested "money in money out" systems working) and so on.

But I've said all this before. Its my opinion, and its borne out by plenty of fact and historical precendent.

No doubt you can do the same for your worldview.

Come on Grizz, I'm enjoying this. Surely you can do better than just rant against the "evil capitalists" ?

 

[«)Fîrë$±ørm(»]

hm... u seem to think selfishness is a good thing to keep economic growth / new technologies / etc. comming
well yes it accelerates development but ffs r we in a hurry or something?
personally i consider selfishness a bad thing... do u tell a lil kid to be as egoistic as it possibly could be?
dont u tell that kid to share candy with friends/brosters/sisters?
in germany around 5 - 10% of the households own 45% of the country's wealth
and underneath that number u ll find many who did not get off their asses but got their daddy's credit card...

 

[grizz]

Originally posted by Thuringwethil
Come on Grizz, I'm enjoying this. Surely you can do better than just rant against the "evil capitalists" ?

yeah its hysterical isnt it. unfortunately im just doing this in bored moments at work and thus im happy to concede.

oh and its 'comrade grizz' to you....

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by grizz
yeah its hysterical isnt it. unfortunately im just doing this in bored moments at work and thus im happy to concede.

oh and its 'comrade grizz' to you....

Spasibaw, Tovarich!

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by «)Fîrë$±ørm(»
hm... u seem to think selfishness is a good thing to keep economic growth / new technologies / etc. comming
well yes it accelerates development but ffs r we in a hurry or something?
personally i consider selfishness a bad thing... do u tell a lil kid to be as egoistic as it possibly could be?
dont u tell that kid to share candy with friends/brosters/sisters?
in germany around 5 - 10% of the households own 45% of the country's wealth
and underneath that number u ll find many who did not get off their asses but got their daddy's credit card...

Are we in a hurry? That depends I guess.

1. You prepared to let more people die needlessly of curable illnesses until we can be arsed finding a cure?

2. You prepared to let countries suffer a lack of drinking water because we can't be arsed developing proper desalination plants and distribution infrastructure?

3. You prepared to allow pollution to degrade the biosphere even more until we can be arsed to develop cleaner energy sources etc?

4. In short, is everything in your view perfect in the world and we don't need to bother doing anything about it?

Your kid with the sweets is actually a good example.

Consider this. Every day, that kid buys a bag of sweets with his own money, and is forced to give half away for free to brothers, friends, etc. This is fine if it is what he wants to do. Suppose he doesn't? Suppose he decides to stop buying sweets. Are you going to force him to buy them again? Or will you force the other people to take a turn spending their money and handing away half of what they buy for free? That is how the tax system works in most of Europe - the top rate of tax is ~50%, and the amount you are earning at which that rate becomes effective is generally not very high at all. Which means that above a certain level, 50% of your effort is wasted as far as you're concerned, as you will see little if any benefit from the way in which that extra tax revenue is deployed.

There is a difference between selfishness and being allowed to make a profit from your own efforts.

Total selfishness is a no-no. But why should people who've invested lots of their own time and money in something not be allowed to make the first big profit from it before it is made widely available?

If you take a risk, and that risk turns out to be a good one, I think you should be allowed to profit. Because there was always the chance that the risk would be a bad one, and you'd lose out - and incidentally, if you did, you wouldn't get compensation from anyone else as it would be seen as "your decision, your fault, your problem."

 

[grizz]

oh come on thuring you know perfectly well that the first three items on your list are in the hands of a rich elite who will patent everything and then basically hold the developing world to ransom..... everyone is aware that pharmaceutical companies are among the worst for this...

you seem to believe that its fine to have a rich elite who make great profits at the expense of poorer people, but we neednt worry cos they are all wonderful benefactors who really want peace and good health throughout the globe...

even if you truly are of that ilk thats fine, but id suggest 99% of hardcore capitalists are not. they maintain and increase their wealth by essentially owning the lower classes...

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by grizz
oh come on thuring you know perfectly well that the first three items on your list are in the hands of a rich elite who will patent everything and then basically hold the developing world to ransom..... everyone is aware that pharmaceutical companies are among the worst for this...

you seem to believe that its fine to have a rich elite who make great profits at the expense of poorer people, but we neednt worry cos they are all wonderful benefactors who really want peace and good health throughout the globe...

even if you truly are of that ilk thats fine, but id suggest 99% of hardcore capitalists are not. they maintain and increase their wealth by essentially owning the lower classes...

Err, possibly, but:

1. Patents have a finite lifespan, which is typically no more than 20 years (depending on jurisdiction).

2. What's to stop poorer people patenting stuff?

3. Do you have any idea of the number of skilled staff, and massive amount of R&D which goes into making new pharmaceutical drugs? Its piss easy to duplicate, but pretty damn hard to create. Why should a company which has just spent a fortune in time, money & effort be forced to license its product essentially for free to other companies who thereby save themselves huge amounts in R&D and staff costs (incidentally requiring to employ fewer people, so less jobs) and who just ride on the back of someone else's effort? Come on, you can do better than this Grizzz. If you actually stopped and thought about the Pharmaceutical drugs case, you'd realise your point is total bunk.

4. Again, ignore your socialist knee-jerk and actually examine the facts. Most of the shit-rich people in the world also donate pretty heavily to charities, whether educational, medical or social. Even Bill Gates. Or consider this - the Wellcome Trust, set up by your evil capitalists - happens to be the biggest investor in medical science (and incidentally your no doubt beloved NHS) in the UK. It contributes way more than the Government, to say nothing of the extra jobs it creates.

5. The "owning" comment is also only half true. Take a look at the number of shit rich people in the world. A very large proportion of them started out poor as church mice and got rich through their own efforts. That despite the supposed evils of the capitalist system.

6. This is the point of a democratic capitalist system - everyone has the chance to make something of themselves. In a socialist system, you don't even have the chance ...

7. You voted in a socialist Labout government in 1997. Don't come crying to me just because your beloved party has done nothing but restrict opportunity for the poor and remove your democratic freedoms since it came to power.

Imagine - a Labour government abolishes student grants and fees, and not a fucking peep of protest by anyone. Imagine if the Tories had done that? So much for investing in the future. And, incidentally, closing another door by which poor but bright kids used to be able to escape the poverty of their backgrounds...

 

[grizz]

Originally posted by Thuringwethil

2. What's to stop poorer people patenting stuff?

ur having a fucking laugh right?

yeah blah blah all our hard work why should anyone else reap the benefit etc etc.....

ive read about 1/3 of your post and im yawning already...

 

[grizz]

just like to point out that at no point have i stated im a socialist or a communist or any other 'ist'.

thats just what you have decided in your omnipotent wisdom....

all im saying is that that i aint no capitalist.... and i dont approve of capitalism in general....

come on thurrrrrrinnnngggggg you can do muuuuch muuuuuuuuch better than this....

have a nice weekend see you monday...

 

[«)Fîrë$±ørm(»]

hm... yea there r certainly things that need to be researched and developed very quickly but
desalting plants r already developed and used in israel for instance
i dont see how/where 3rd world countries benefit of this invention unless its gov't got the money to afford such facilities

also, in the US for example
take a lil kid born in a gheto
=> very likely that its parents dont care about it, bad social enviroment, poor schools, bad education, ==> lower iq as a result, etc.
then it probably will not care about school, become a criminal, get into drugs
yea sure it could work hard to get out of that shit but who is gonna tell that kid that school is important?
also, what about that kid being stupid? i mean maybe it wouldnt even pass high school?
whereas a rich kid can basically do whatever it wants
"daddy will fix that for me"

yeah i know thats a bit extreme but still better than ur "sit on their ass" theory

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by grizz
ur having a fucking laugh right?

yeah blah blah all our hard work why should anyone else reap the benefit etc etc.....

ive read about 1/3 of your post and im yawning already...

I'm using facts and examples to justify my viewpoint. Don't see you doing that grizz mate.

And if you're not a capitalist, that kinda narrows down your options...

 

[«)Fîrë$±ørm(»]

how many options r left to pick?

 

[grizz]

Originally posted by Thuringwethil
I'm using facts and examples to justify my viewpoint. Don't see you doing that grizz mate.

And if you're not a capitalist, that kinda narrows down your options...

im not bothering as its a waste of time trying to argue with a human encyclopedia. i just want the impressionable youngsters round here to know that there are ways of life other than being a young tory, and am happy to let them look the facts up for themselves.

and as to your second point, narrows yes, defines no.

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by grizz
i just want the impressionable youngsters round here to know that there are ways of life other than being a young tory, and am happy to let them look the facts up for themselves.

Ahh, then it seems we share a common purpose - namely to encourage people to try and think for themselves.

There's a singular lack of that going on these days, with far too many people simply accepting what they are told.

This = bad.

 

[ProPain]

2. What's to stop poorer people patenting stuff?

MONEY

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by ProPain
MONEY

Fact: Copyright is free, and comes into existence as soon as you've created an original work. You don't need to register it and don't need to pay a fee to anyone for it - in the UK and USA at least.

Patents: Not checked the cost of registering a Patent recently, but it is not expensive at all from what I recall.

 

[dog]

As per ussual thuringwethil who's obviously a intelligent person, uses pseudofacts, personal believes and ad hominems to try and create the impression that only thurs opinion can be right. I have long since stopped posting in this forum, the level of the debate is simply appaling, the means, the arguments generally crap. It has never ceased to amaze me that a person with Thuringwethils obvious knowledge and intelligence can be so naïve in certain areas, but I guess we all are to some extent. I take pride in my naïvity, I face it with open eyes. It is in my humble opinion the only way to ensure you don't come across arrogantly.

I am not gonna bother going thru the whole debate here, it's simply to boring, but:

Yes, copyright comes for free, but enforcing is DOES NOT!

Check those patents rights, if they are anything like ours, I wouldn't call them "cheap" and the enforcing bits also applies here.

As for your claim a large portion of the filthy rich in the world worked hard for that wealth, I would love to see numbers and facts that prove this luv.

And yes, you may call me a socialist, but the very fact that you can't reffer to socialists without calling them "Kneejerk socialist" speaks volumes of your prejudices and your ability / willingnes to see beyond them.

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by Dog
As per ussual thuringwethil who's obviously a intelligent person, uses pseudofacts, personal believes and ad hominems to try and create the impression that only thurs opinion can be right. I have long since stopped posting in this forum, the level of the debate is simply appaling, the means, the arguments generally crap. It has never ceased to amaze me that a person with Thuringwethils obvious knowledge and intelligence can be so naïve in certain areas, but I guess we all are to some extent. I take pride in my naïvity, I face it with open eyes. It is in my humble opinion the only way to ensure you don't come across arrogantly.

I am not gonna bother going thru the whole debate here, it's simply to boring, but:

Yes, copyright comes for free, but enforcing is DOES NOT!

Check those patents rights, if they are anything like ours, I wouldn't call them "cheap" and the enforcing bits also applies here.

As for your claim a large portion of the filthy rich in the world worked hard for that wealth, I would love to see numbers and facts that prove this luv.

And yes, you may call me a socialist, but the very fact that you can't reffer to socialists without calling them "Kneejerk socialist" speaks volumes of your prejudices and your ability / willingnes to see beyond them.

1. I never said that copyright enforcement was free. I know its not. As does anyone who bothers to read the news or watch TV. However, I was simply answering the original question - which did not deal with the question of enforcing them.

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/forms/ukpatsupp.htm - dig it. Most of the things required to register your patent are free. Costs only bite if you want to renew them, or make additions / corrections.

2. In this country alone, off the top of my head, ex prime minister John Major started life as a circus apprentice. From there to leader of the country is a pretty decent achievement. Businessmen like Richard Branson did not exactly start life with a silver spoon in their mouth. If you want a list of specific examples, sure, I'll happily do the research tonight for you.

My point was, to hear some people talk, all the "rich" people in the world are only richt because of birthright or by oppressing the poor. This is utter twaddle and you know it. I was merely providing examples that this is not the case.

3. Before you start chucking latin tags in, please do the research to see whether they are actually relevant to the point you are trying to make.

5. If we're talking of appalling debate, lets consider your post:

a. Personal attacks.
b. Personal opinion not clearly marked as such.
c. Lack of backup for statements by reference to other sources.
d. To sum up, you're guilty of everything you accuse me of.

Contrast with my posts which:

a. Specifically point out what is my opinion and what is not.
b. Provide links to relevant documents being discussed.
c. Where "facts" are stated and not anally backed up with reference to 19 million other sources, the facts in question are generally blindingly self evident to anyone who does not live under a rock with no exposure to school, media or books.

Again, if there are any specific examples in any of my posts which offend you, or are untrue or whatever, please point them out to me. I'm big enough to accept the fact that I am fallible. If you can't or won't, I'll assume you're simply to lazy to back up your allegations with the facts you claim to love so much, and will therefore be unable to take you seriously in future.

Have a nice day.

 

[dog]

Again, ignore your socialist knee-jerk

Sorry, my bad, you're simply claiming to know the reasoning(or lack there of) behind another persons statements.

I chose the term knowing what it means, I will still claim that this is what you do. You might hide it ever so elluquontly(sp?), but that doesn't change anything.

As for me attacking you personally? No, but I do attack the way in which you debate on this forum

1. Because I think it is sad that a person of your intelligence can't rise above such means.
2. Because it just helps to ensure that this forums general level of debate is such that I among other cba reading it

(See I can put up nicely numbered lists too)

And no, I am really not gonna be bothered going thru your posts to find examples. And yes, you may :

assume you're simply to lazy to back up your allegations with the facts you claim to love so much, and will therefore be unable to take you seriously in future.

also responses like;

Where "facts" are stated and not anally backed up with reference to 19 million other sources, the facts in question are generally blindingly self evident to anyone who does not live under a rock with no exposure to school, media or books.

Serves what purpose?

To get back on track, if you want a semantic battle of wits, fine, I am not gonna be bothered joining it. My english is simply not good enough to play these word twisting games that you seem to love so much, I admit that.

But if you want to discuss politics, social issues and such on a equal ground. You have to realize, that not anyone can be arsed putting as much research into these things as you seem to.

Saying that patents are relatively cheap(by your standards anyway) and copyright is for doesn't change the original claim that the playing field is not equal for the poor and the rich is this area(as in so many). Because what good is a patent or a copyright if you can't afford it? You of all people should know the strategy of prolonged and expensive suits in these areas. They often results in one party having to forfeit the case, simply because they cannot afford it. Even tho they are often considered right. So of what worth is the patent, if you haven't got the means to defend it?

Also, pointing out a few well know people who have struggled their way up from relatively modest means, proves what? Yes I will be glad if you come up with the numbers from say the UK's top 1000 richest and show me that; "a large portion" of these made their own fortune... if not I will; assume you're simply to lazy to back up your allegations with the facts you claim to love so much, and will therefore be unable to take you seriously in future.

Where did anyone claim that ALL rich people is only rich by birthright? And if they did, shouldn't you be tolerante enough to ignore such a comment, and take it for what it is meant?

And no matter how you twist and turn it, the sad fact is, that as long as you have limited resources, and people who control huge ammounts of these, other people will lack them.

 

[Cutter]

Originally posted by Dog
Sorry, my bad, you're simply claiming to know the reasoning(or lack there of) behind another persons statements.

I have yet to see any person calling themselves a "socialist" who does no actively deplore the "evils" of "capitalism" and who makes their opinion known in fairly forthright terms. Excuse me for holding a mirror up to you and your views.

Originally posted by Dog
As for me attacking you personally? No, but I do attack the way in which you debate on this forum

1. Because I think it is sad that a person of your intelligence can't rise above such means.
2. Because it just helps to ensure that this forums general level of debate is such that I among other cba reading it

(See I can put up nicely numbered lists too)

Rise above what means? Please state exactly what you're trying to say here. Otherwise, your veiled threats and innuendo are of no importance or relevance to the discussion in hand. So far, the people I'm debating with are doing what I am - trying to stay on topic. You're the only one trying to stir up mischief.

Originally posted by Dog
And no, I am really not gonna be bothered going thru your posts to find examples. And yes, you may :

Possibly because you can't find any examples? Oh dear. You're now guilty of what you accuse others of.

Originally posted by Dog
To get back on track, if you want a semantic battle of wits, fine, I am not gonna be bothered joining it. My english is simply not good enough to play these word twisting games that you seem to love so much, I admit that.

I think the word you're looking for is actually sophistry. Back to the dictionary old bean. And if you truly are meaning semantics, well, I'm sorry, but I am trying to state my views as clearly and accurately as possible. Your unwillingness to do the same is not my problem. "If you can't say what you mean, you will never mean what you say."

Originally posted by Dog
But if you want to discuss politics, social issues and such on a equal ground. You have to realize, that not anyone can be arsed putting as much research into these things as you seem to.

I realise that full well. But if you come on here, making half-arsed comments on the basis of your own personal prejudices, then you can't expect anything less than for other people to point out the problems in your reasoning. Your intellectual laziness is not my problem - but don't expect me to ignore it and point out the flaws in your arguments resulting from this.

Last time I checked, the title for this forum was "Political & Social Issues". As you are aware, politics and sociology tend to generate very little in the way of fact, and a whole hell of a lot in the way of opinion. I can cope with that. Why can't you?

Originally posted by Dog
Saying that patents are relatively cheap(by your standards anyway) and copyright is for doesn't change the original claim that the playing field is not equal for the poor and the rich is this area(as in so many). Because what good is a patent or a copyright if you can't afford it? You of all people should know the strategy of prolonged and expensive suits in these areas. They often results in one party having to forfeit the case, simply because they cannot afford it. Even tho they are often considered right. So of what worth is the patent, if you haven't got the means to defend it?

Damn all, and I know this, and you know that I know this. But lets get back to the point in hand - Propain's original comment was not asking or stating "how much does it cost to defend a patent or copyright claim in a court of law." Last time I checked, plenty of big companies who have legal copyrights suffer when a bigger, richer company comes along. So its not like this is confined to rich v poor here. It works just as well when its rich v richer.

Originally posted by Dog
Also, pointing out a few well know people who have struggled their way up from relatively modest means, proves what? Yes I will be glad if you come up with the numbers from say the UK's top 1000 richest and show me that; "a large portion" of these made their own fortune... if not I will; assume you're simply to lazy to back up your allegations with the facts you claim to love so much, and will therefore be unable to take you seriously in future.

Are you prepared to accept stuff from the likes of "The Sunday Times Rich List" then? Or is that a bit too much of a capitalist oppressor paper for you? If so, please point out any other potential sources you would consider valid.

Originally posted by Dog
Where did anyone claim that ALL rich people is only rich by birthright? And if they did, shouldn't you be tolerante enough to ignore such a comment, and take it for what it is meant?

The implication in several posts is quite clear. And as you're so fond of facts, tell me: why should I accept someone spouting their own opinion as fact? That sounds like double standards to me.

Originally posted by Dog
And no matter how you twist and turn it, the sad fact is, that as long as you have limited resources, and people who control huge ammounts of these, other people will lack them.

And I've never denied this. My whole point is that under a capitalist system, even the poor people have the chance to become one of the super rich because everyone is being judged by a universal yardstick - individual merit. Under socialist/communist systems, you only get to be one of the elite if you kiss up to the party machine. Which strikes me as iniquitous.