Serious Bizness Message Board

↕

Posted by Lord Crump Jun 19 2010 02:52 GMT

- Like?

It kinda disgusts me how divided this whole issue is. I do hold immense sympathy for the Palestinians, but some pro-Palestine individuals are in the extreme, thinking that it's a good idea to kick out all of the Jews living in the region, justifying it by saying, "WELL, IT'S THE PALESTINIANS' HOMELAND." No shit, but take a second to think about this. Most of the Jews that were alive when Palestine was transformed in to Israel are now dead, and the vast majority of the Jews currently living in Israel/Palestine were born and raised there. It's their homeland too, damnit. In other words, Israel shouldn't have existed in the first place, but now it does, and a solution to the conflict must accomodate that.

Saying that the Palestinians should have the land is just as incorrect as saying that the Israelis should have the land. The only correct hope is to hope that both can have the land, and prosper in it as brethren. With that said, the first step to solving the problem is to hope that the Israeli government will eventually stop treating the Palestinians as dogs and let them live and participate in the government as equal citizens. I don't support any solution that involves a radical deconstruction of the government of Israel, however; that will only create more problems than it will solve.

How about everyone just sit on their little chairs and be happy that you have any goddamn land

Crump in history when 2 radically different forces desperately seek out something they desire for themselves, 98% of the time theres going to be a shitstorm regardless of what anyone does, One side just needs to be annihilated by another so the rest of us can move on to dealing with our own problems. Not everything can be ended in handshakes and treaties like every democracy in the world thinks it can. Look at when the Americans bombed japan, that didn't end in a handshake nor a treaty, that ended in a massive explosion and gigantic death toll, we didn't give a damn. Now look at our relationship with Japan now, they're one of our hugest marketers bringing us everything from basic furniture to pornongraphy .

Sure we'd totally like to see this end peacefully but with a problem thats been lasting this long it's ridiculous trying to solve it using democracy I mean come the *crag* on, thats like trying to build a treehouse with plastic tools. Sometimes death is the assbeating that a country needs to put it's bullshit in line.

↕

Private educational institutions should be abolished, there should be universal academic standards for schools of higher learning, and law should be imposed that caps max tuition at 10,000 a year (Or 5,000 a semester).

Posted by Lord Crump Apr 08 2010 21:11 GMT

- Like?

Now that I have your attention, do you agree or disagree, and why?

Then there would be significantly fewer specialized schools.

If it's not an emergency, you have to wait at least a month to go to a professional. Like I said, 6 months for a cardiologist; to address a heart rummer.

↕

What are some of your new year's resolutions?

Posted by Jr The Dark Knight Dec 31 2009 12:39 GMT

- Like?

I'm not entirely sure if this belongs in here, but I hope it's ok. Some of mine include trying to be a more efficient and less procrastinating person. I hope to get my workout started again and I hope to spend some more time here at digibutter.

my new years resolution is to not suck so much at FPS games while still being a god at all other games.(ecept for those brain age games, I suck at them too.)

Hike the Appalachian Trail, all 2180 miles.

↕

Gender roles, gender identities, the concepts of masculine and feminine; they are all mere examples of conformism. You may think there are certain ways that males or females should think, dress or act, but why is that?

Posted by Lord Crump Dec 31 2009 05:45 GMT

- Like?

Is it because you logically concluded that there are certain ways the sexes should behave? Or is it because you are merely conforming to the conservative views of an ignorant society and flawed culture? It is disgusting to think that some people still believe that there are certain traits beyond the obvious biological differences of the sexes that determine what makes a man a "man" and what makes a woman a "woman."

It is a stifling of individuality in favor of conformism. This all boils down to one, single truth: you should act as an individual. Not as a custom or an idea.

Biological differences must result in some behavioral differences, which leads to social differences. Though I don't think gender conformism is a direct result of biological differences, more like a side-effect.
It's probably impossible to think of yourself totally as an individual, unaffected by any aspect of social conformity. Also, many people conform even after considering individual alternatives. There is usually (not always) a logical reason people think, dress, and act the same. To go against *all* conformity is being different just to be different.

If you actively engage in either trying to be or not be like someone or something you are conforming to a standard. The only way to not conform is to not care about anything at all. Everyone exhibits traits of "conforming" therefore we are all conformists. Even you Crump, with your hippie liberal agenda I don't give a *crag* about.

↕

What do you identify yourself as?

Posted by Lord Crump Oct 02 2009 15:20 GMT

- Like?

Socially liberal but fiscally conservative, socially liberal while fiscally liberal, socially conservative but fiscally liberal, or socially conservative while fiscally conservative? If you're not sure where you stand, take the test at politicalcompass.org. Here's mine: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=8.25&soc=-7.23 So, in other words, I'm libertarian (Liberal on an ethical/social front while capitalist on an economic front).

↕

Would you rather live in an extreme anarcho-capitalist society or an extreme anarcho-communist society?

Posted by Lord Crump Sep 17 2009 03:00 GMT

- Like?

Allow me to explain. In the extreme anarcho-capitalist society, individuality and personal liberty comes first. You are you, and you are not recognized as just a part of a group. However, this would mean that everyone would act out of self-interest; there would be no group involvement unless their own personal gain was somehow involved. Let's look at the anarcho-communist society; everyone helps eachother and work toward common goals, and there is utmost safety for each person. However, there would also be a lack of individuality; everyone would essentially hold the same mindset. In addition, unlike capitalism, which rewards people based on their ambition or intelligence, in a communist system, each individual is rewarded the same amount, regardless of qualifying factors. Plus, each individual would be able to take in as much as they think they need to sustain themselves, and this could be abused. Personally, I would rather live in the individual-focused anarcho-capitalist society; it rewards ambition, self-interest, and intelligence, and allows individuality to flourish. However, one must realize that neither of these extremes are possible; there will always be those to abuse both systems, and that's why any attempts at making a capitalist utopia would evolve in to fascism and any attempts at making a communist utopia would evolve in to authoritarian socialism.

anarcho-communist please

Remember, selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing. It only becomes a bad thing when it harms another person. With that said, being selfish may result in not helping someone, but that doesn't mean you're harming that person; if it did, than everyone in the world is harming someone every second of time.
I believe helping people in need is alright; it's just that you shouldn't be expected to/forced to.

Serious Bizness Message Board

Find-A-Forum

Recent Posts

Hawt Games

Newest Users

digibutter

Chat

Style