User Tag List

First 41213141516 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 171

  1. #131
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Absolutely not. I never said anything about so-called "inherent" properties of Islam as a whole, while you did. However, I mentioned that there are specific issues within the theology spread by 3 madhab of Sunni Islam. The truth is simply that I know Islam far more than you do, that I'm more down to earth, analytical and factual, and hence, I'd say you're out of touch with the real world.
    I was just tired to see people debating over a subject where they're so deeply ignorant, where they confuse their own political prejudices with absolute truths. You were doing exactly the same mistake than true fascists like JHBowden, and even if you opposed him, that gives you no excuse.
    Your idea of "analytical and factual" means an intricate (or pseudo) knowledge of theological debates, while compeltely ignoring whether or not this made any real hsitorical difference ot the roles of these religions.

    Should you have practised modern sociology a bit more, you would know that the values spread by religion have always been a major political factor ("major" doesn't mean an absolute factor), and denying this is just a proof of blind stupidity. You can check Weber's, Simmel's, Durkheim's works. Of course, Marx never really understood this, but that doesn't imply Max Weber was a protofascist!

    when did Marx deny this? I thought he and Engels were quite clear on the political improtance of, say, protestantism, Judaism, "Mohamediasm" (as Engels alled it), Hinduism, etc. To the point that they called "orientalists" by other post-modernists.

    But it's not the point we are discussing. We are discussing whether the intricacies of theology between monotheistic religions, really matter to the extent you have claimed in the past, when you stated that it's impossible to compare Islam with Judaism or Christianity. This because you completely ignored any historical argument and fixated only on theological intricacies.

    I get more and more the impression that you perceive the world in black and white. And that anybody who dares to disagree with you (even a fellow leftist) is simply labelled as "evil Fascist".
    but I didn't call you a fascist, evil or otherwise. I know you are not a fascist. Again: intellectual dishonesty on your part.

    You however have called me a Stalinist, many times.

    Tcda, you behave exactly like a religious person, like a fundamentalist priest. And hence, it's not a big surprise to see that you accuse me of apostasy, heresy, or worst.
    Not at all, if we look through our interactions, the insults and accusations of being wrong simply because one diverges from a certain ideological framework, have always come from yourself.

    Yes, you're right: let's build a nuclear power plant in Haiti and let's see what happens next.
    Another strawman.

    Once again, your views about extreme industrialization are ridiculous, totally outdated and possibly very dangerous.
    Outdated? This is coming from someone whose views on poverty come straight from Malthus.


    hahahaha!!!

    My dear Stalinist friend, either it's time to read Marx more carefully, either you're joking with me.

    Youa re vulgarizing and misrepresenting MArxism. But no mind: If you read Lenin's Theory of Imperialism, he is quite clear on the inseperability of eocnomics and politics in the epoch of monopoly capitalism.

    you're 100% predictable.
    thanks. I find it funny you would consider "unpredictable" to be a compliment!

    You would need to read a lot more. Try Adorno or Habermas, for instance.
    surely you could do better than that. Karl Popper or Olvier North give a more effective critic of Marxism than Habermas.

    Next you'll be recommending Hardt and Negri.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  2. #132
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    Your idea of "analytical and factual" means an intricate (or pseudo) knowledge of theological debates, while compeltely ignoring whether or not this made any real hsitorical difference ot the roles of these religions.
    (...)

    But it's not the point we are discussing. We are discussing whether the intricacies of theology between monotheistic religions, really matter to the extent you have claimed in the past, when you stated that it's impossible to compare Islam with Judaism or Christianity. This because you completely ignored any historical argument and fixated only on theological intricacies.
    1/ I never said anything about "Islam" as a whole, because there is no such a thing. However, I made some comment about specific schools in Sunni Islam.
    I would never make this kind of ignorant generalization. But you did. While you prefer ideological, stereotypical answers, I'm rather interested in specific details: real life, real numbers, real facts.

    2/ I wasn't discussing about the sex of Angels, like Byzantines did. I was rather interested by the daily consequences of such "theological debates", how they affect and structure society and in which proportion.
    Because it's only a factor amongst the many that could define a social and cultural context, but it's not an absolute factor, of course. For instance, Bananatrombones was absolutely right to evoke economic context as well. We have to take into account everything, if we want to obtain a realistic picture of our society: it's not black and white; it's almost always gray.

    3/ You have absolutely no idea what the history of Islamic societies is, and how Time and modernity affected them. Once again, only stereotypical, limited views. Of course, I know that by "historical process", you do not mean "history" but only your biased, orthodox and outdated Marxist analysis.
    Nonetheless, your eagerness of talking about something you strictly know nothing about might get you into trouble, someday. In Academia, this behaviour is forbidden, should I explain you why?

    4/ If you read me carefully, you would notice I never made any "absolute" conclusion. Even when I was asked if Sunni Islam could evolve despite its current context, I said yes. Possibly yes (we can't be sure). But let's not be naive, it will not happen overnight when you notice the current power struggle between fundamentalists and true "modernizers".
    Anything can happen, in fact. Once again, I have no miracle solution. And once again, you have to put that into context, into many contexts. Religion is a powerful force, not to be overlooked, but it's not the only force acting there. Anybody who tries to reduce the complexity of the world to a sole, decisive and absolute factor is a liar: that's one of my issue with orthodox Marxism, which bases its views of the world solely on economics and deliberately ignore the rest.


    when did Marx deny this? I thought he and Engels were quite clear on the political improtance of, say, protestantism, Judaism, "Mohamediasm" (as Engels alled it), Hinduism, etc. To the point that they called "orientalists" by other post-modernists.
    Let's say that religions weren't Marx's cup of tea, that he desperately wanted to rationalize the world a little bit too much. He was a bit like Hegel, and did the same mistakes.

    but I didn't call you a fascist, evil or otherwise. I know you are not a fascist. Again: intellectual dishonesty on your part.
    You have reached Godwin's point, nonetheless.
    Because you do not understand what I'm saying, you have compared me countless times with fascism and Far right. This is exactly the behaviour of a religious zealot accusing others of heresy and blasphemy.

    You however have called me a Stalinist, many times.
    Yes, and for two reasons:

    1/ I genuinely think you're a Stalinist, somehow. I have the pleasure to count many Trotskyst friends, and I have to say you're far more rigid and orthodox than most of them, and that your interpretation of Marx's scriptures are... rather extreme.

    2/ I think it's a humorous way to warn you about your seriousness. That even Marx (Peace and Blessing be upon Him) should be interpreted with a pinch of salt.


    Another strawman.
    Are you really aware what a strawman fallacy is?
    Everybody here seems to use that magic word, "strawman", without really knowing what it means, at least epistemologically speaking. This attitude is somewhat tiresome.


    Outdated? This is coming from someone whose views on poverty come straight from Malthus.
    I never said that nor I quoted Malthus.

    Simply, I adapt my answer to specific contexts. "Act locally but work globally...", you know the motto.
    Yes, overpopulation may be a major issue in Haiti, in a limited island with limited ressources like this. And if you don't believe me, just go there. It depends of the context. In other islands, it can be totally different. But here, we are speaking of Haiti in 2010, and this island only.

    While on the other hand, you seem to have an immediate answer for every possible situation, even if you don't have time to analyze it carefully. You think there's a miracle solution to anything, while the real world often is more complex than you think it is. You're a preacher.

    By the way, what have you done for Haiti? For real?
    I will be there during the summer, since I worked for the NGO "Urbanism without borders". In the meantime, where will you be, with your miracle solutions?

    Yes: let's build a nuclear power plant there!

    thanks. I find it funny you would consider "unpredictable" to be a compliment!
    Well, there's a wide margin between being 100% predictable and being totally "unpredictable".
    Once again, you're so unrealistic.

    surely you could do better than that. Karl Popper or Olvier North give a more effective critic of Marxism than Habermas.

    Next you'll be recommending Hardt and Negri.
    I prefer to speak of books I've really read, and written by people who shouldn't traumatize your orthodox beliefs. But since you quote Popper (an evil neo-classic libertarian ), his views about the obvious filiation between Plato, Hegel and Marx are not especially revolutionary.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  3. #133
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Blackmail, what a beautiful exercise in foaming at the mouth hyperbole - I congratulate you!

    1.) You argued that "you can't compare Islam with Judaism" and devoted yourself to arguing how its scriptures lead to more violent and intolerant outcomes for societies. Again though, this can't be historically or empirically proven.

    And I didn't say "historical processes2 I said "history", for a good reason - it does not even require a marxist analysis to see what I am saying, any liberal could recognise it.


    2.) I never said to build a nuclear power station in Haiti. However I support, not oppose, measures which increase the productive power of humanity, like nuclear power. Someone who opposes that and instead preacher birth cotnrol is IMO a reactionary. Does that make a preacher simply to hold that opinion?


    3.) It's funny that you think any mention of the Nazis is impermissiable, but you freely throw around accusations of Stalinism, and even call it "humorous". This suggests, ironically, that you're soft on Stalinism. Probably out of a desire to not face up to the truly nefarious nature of your own ideological past. (You share this with some other ex-Stalinist liberals, like Christopher Hitchens and David Aaranovitch).


    4.) All you have to do is show me one place where I promised a simple "miracle" solution for anywhere. I can find quotes by you to back up every criticism I make.

    I in fact believe that the working people of the world will only be liberated when they liberate themselves, and that the role of the left is to provide unconditional support to progressive struggles and try to build unity and solidarity, while arguing for a socialist workers international. This is the opposite of miracle-working, which would be placing ones faith in the benevolence of enlightened policy-makers and NGO's.


    5.) I can't go to Haiti, I actually have to work. but I'm glad you are such a humanitarian. Perhaps you'll explain when you are out there to the people that their poverty is the result of overbreeding and that humanity's productive capacities simply cannot provide for them. (And you wer enot ust speakign about HAiti, go back and read the thread):

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...cks-haiti.html


    6.) yes Popper was a neo-classic libertarian. And Oliver North is a neo-con. But yet they are more coherent than Habermas.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  4. #134
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    When was the time where living standards rose most rapidly in the west? It was between the end of WW2 and the OPEC crisis of the mid 1970's. And it was based on the expansion of the industrial bases and a strong industrial working class, as well as the fear of the capitalist classes of a revolution and the Soviet Union, forcing them to concede wages and conditions which would before have been unimageinable.

    Since then (an extraordinary conjuncture which will likely never again be repeated under capitalism), we've seen 30 years of stagnating wages, cheap credit to replace wages (now collapsing around us), longer working hours, less rights, higher unemployment, "structural adjustment" and removal of state assistence around the world. All made possible through the defeats inflicted of the labour mvoement.

    Charity is just a band aid on that. Working people can only rely on their collective organization to defend living standards, not the charity of some rich saviour.
    Interesting sleight-of-hand there. How many fewer people in the entire world are mired in absolute poverty since 1980?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #135
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CollisionCourse? View Post
    We're both talking about different things. I meant our society as a system. Social mobility is just an inner process, that doesn't affect the overall structure. A glass of water is still the same glass of water even after you shake it.
    What structure do you mean?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #136
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Interesting sleight-of-hand there. How many fewer people in the entire world are mired in absolute poverty since 1980?
    I would expect living standards to rise from such a low base though, if we are talking in absolute terms of technological advance (which was also be the case in planned economies).

    However I would guess these rises were lower than in the 1945-1975 period.

    And also, how do you expect them to keep rising when they were based, ultimately, on US consumption underwriting global economic growth - something which has now proven unsustainable, and the results of which are now throwing tens of millions back into poverty.

    Again, the only answer to that is a political struggle for structural change.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

  7. #137
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    1.) You argued that "you can't compare Islam with Judaism"
    Not exactly. But it would be as meaningless to compare Judaism with Shintoism, at least when it comes to values.
    Anyway, I acknowledged that indeed there is some common ground between Shia Islam and Judaism, that the way both religions have evolved throughout recent history is more similar than within the Sunni madhabs.

    Obviously, you don't care about details, about what people are really saying, even when they try to help you. This is genuine sophistry, and that's why so far I can't respect you, intellectually speaking.

    Why should JHBowden biased prejudices be more interesting than yours, epistemologically speaking?
    OK: he's making me puke, while you're simply... disappointing. Maybe that's my leftist prejudices speaking but once again, dishonesty is dishonesty, regardless of political ideology.


    and devoted yourself to arguing how its scriptures lead to more violent and intolerant outcomes for societies. Again though, this can't be historically or empirically proven.
    Once again, either you did not read me, or either you're lying on purpose.
    How could we debate then?

    And I didn't say "historical processes2 I said "history", for a good reason - it does not even require a marxist analysis to see what I am saying, any liberal could recognise it.
    Is this really all you can do?


    2.) I never said to build a nuclear power station in Haiti. However I support, not oppose, measures which increase the productive power of humanity, like nuclear power. Someone who opposes that and instead preacher birth cotnrol is IMO a reactionary. Does that make a preacher simply to hold that opinion?
    Yes, you're a preacher because you don't care about specific details or context. You care only about what your Ideology/God tells you, you don't seem to exhibit the slightest other intellectual pursuit.


    3.) It's funny that you think any mention of the Nazis is impermissiable, but you freely throw around accusations of Stalinism, and even call it "humorous". This suggests, ironically, that you're soft on Stalinism. Probably out of a desire to not face up to the truly nefarious nature of your own ideological past. (You share this with some other ex-Stalinist liberals, like Christopher Hitchens and David Aaranovitch).
    No. The truth is that you're likely to behave like a Stalinist. And I know what this means, unfortunately. I know this is a "big word" and I would prefer not to have a use for it, but sometimes you have to call a cat a cat.

    When will you realize that you've been too far, beyond what's reasonable?

    Admit your sins and repent, my Child.


    4.) All you have to do is show me one place where I promised a simple "miracle" solution for anywhere. I can find quotes by you to back up every criticism I make.
    Since you're a preacher, you never consider multiple factors, and always propose simple demagogic solutions to complex issues. You cannot reason in gray areas, and you deeply believe you represent the "Good" in all circumstances.
    Your Ideology works only if you can quickly identify what should be "pure Evil", and without any possible ambiguity. Strong Ideologies are like Religions: they provide an answer for everything, including existential issues.

    Marx said that to get out of poverty, you should build factories and industrialize the more you can. Then it's what Haitians should do, according to you.
    But the theory has been proven wrong multiple times. It doesn't always work that way.

    But the best proof is that you seem to have an automatic predictable answer for everything provided by your orthodox Marxist framework.



    5.) I can't go to Haiti, I actually have to work. but I'm glad you are such a humanitarian. Perhaps you'll explain when you are out there to the people that their poverty is the result of overbreeding and that humanity's productive capacities simply cannot provide for them. (And you wer enot ust speakign about HAiti, go back and read the thread):

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...cks-haiti.html
    Since you believe in Marx's theory of Value, then it's obvious why you can't understand where your mistake lies.
    There are circumstances where even if an individual works and works and works, it can't produce Value because of limited ressources and a dire economic situation. Is it so hard to understand?
    Are you aware what is the Marginalist theory? Will you still pretend that the same bottle of water has the same Value whether you lie in the middle of the Sahara or whether you're fishing in Finland's drinkable water lakes?


    6.) yes Popper was a neo-classic libertarian. And Oliver North is a neo-con. But yet they are more coherent than Habermas.
    Once again, you need to unambiguously identify "Evil" vs "Good" to feel secure. And anything that stands in the middle, that is too complex for your intellectual perception, you can't or don't want to understand. It's obvious why somebody like Habermas won't make you feel secure. And you don't like it: you're not very courageous, because you want to be right at all costs.

    That's because you're a preacher.

    You should talk with Oberon. Even if your religions aren't the same, at least you're both two fundies in your own ways. At least, you should get along pretty well, since you share the same intellectual profile.

    The world is not that simple, my Child. It is filled with pain, injustice, despair and agony, but that doesn't mean we always have the recipes to counter them. In the meantime, I humbly think it's better to act than to preach. It's only this way you can gather a true empirical experience of reality.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  8. #138
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcda View Post
    I would expect living standards to rise from such a low base though, if we are talking in absolute terms of technological advance (which was also be the case in planned economies).

    However I would guess these rises were lower than in the 1945-1975 period.
    IIRC, economic growth was higher in North America and Western Europe from 1950-1980 than 1980-2000s, but the reverse was true for developing countries. The rate of absolute poverty in world dropped from about 50% to 20-25% in the past thirty years.


    And also, how do you expect them to keep rising when they were based, ultimately, on US consumption underwriting global economic growth - something which has now proven unsustainable, and the results of which are now throwing tens of millions back into poverty.

    Again, the only answer to that is a political struggle for structural change.
    When is the U.S. ending consumption again?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #139
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Take Five View Post
    fascinating
    The conservative virus spreads, even in France.

  10. #140
    psicobolche tcda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,292

    Default

    [QUOTE=Blackmail!;1182043]
    Not exactly. But it would be as meaningless to compare Judaism with Shintoism, at least when it comes to values.
    Anyway, I acknowledged that indeed there is some common ground between Shia Islam and Judaism, that the way both religions have evolved throughout recent history is more similar than within the Sunni madhabs.

    Obviously, you don't care about details, about what people are really saying, even when they try to help you. This is genuine sophistry, and that's why so far I can't respect you, intellectually speaking.

    Why should JHBowden biased prejudices be more interesting than yours, epistemologically speaking?
    OK: he's making me puke, while you're simply... disappointing. Maybe that's my leftist prejudices speaking but once again, dishonesty is dishonesty, regardless of political ideology.

    Once again, either you did not read me, or either you're lying on purpose.
    How could we debate then?
    Ok, you were only talking about most of Islam,and made an exception for one branch. However, you're yet to show the historic effects of this.

    It is not that I think details are irrelevant, I simply was not disputing your theological point. If you venture into a wider political argument, then be prepared for it. You drew political conclusions from your differentiation between the "litteralist" majority in Islam and the "open and questioning" Judaism. But it's still to be shown how Judaism has been any less reactionary than Islam in practice.

    And no I do not think it is a minor point, when you live in a country where someone like Le Pen can get millions of votes and where Muslims are treated as pariahs. there are shades of grey but the question of whether you stand intransigently against all exceptionalism of Muslims is a black and white point. A question of basic human qualities.

    If that makes me a preacher so be it: I have more respect even for irrational religious people in history who have died for the defence of freedom, than for atheist liberal intellectuals who made apologetics for the right-wing.


    Yes, you're a preacher because you don't care about specific details or context. You care only about what your Ideology/God tells you, you don't seem to exhibit the slightest other intellectual pursuit.
    The trouble is that you make a broad political point and justify it with a very narrow set of details which are based on a set of assumptions which are unspoken and hwich you do not wish to debate; and anyone who wishes to debate those asusmptions is a dinosour. I will proceed to demonstrate:


    Marx said that to get out of poverty, you should build factories and industrialize the more you can. Then it's what Haitians should do, according to you.
    But the theory has been proven wrong multiple times. It doesn't always work that way.

    But the best proof is that you seem to have an automatic predictable answer for everything provided by your orthodox Marxist framework.
    ...

    Since you believe in Marx's theory of Value, then it's obvious why you can't understand where your mistake lies.
    There are circumstances where even if an individual works and works and works, it can't produce Value because of limited ressources and a dire economic situation. Is it so hard to understand?
    Essentially the difference here is that you are thinking only in terms of Hati's national resources and national economy, whereas I thinkt he argument about the global economy is more important because that is the only way the underdeveloped world will escape poverty.

    globally the resources exist and the scientific knowledge exists. Nuclear pwoer plants do not need to be built in Haiti today: building them int he west today represents the possibility of emancipation from poverty for Haitians tomorrow.

    Yes, ok, I get the difference: you do not think global reovlution is possible, I do. This is a legitimate disagreement, there are many progressives who I have great respect for, who thinkt he same thing. But what is astonishing, is that you rpesent this "approach", of working within the framework of the national state, as something "new", as something for the "21st Century", as something which surpasses "outdated" Marxism. this is truly pompous my friend - your assumptions are older than Marxism.

    the trouble is that however "socially progressive" you are, your assumptions about the natiobnal state mean that when workers in Latin America demand a living wage for all and development of a national industry free from foreign domination (something the organized working classes in the region have traditionally had as their "maximum programme" if you like), you will deep down believe that this is not possible, because it goes beyond the bounds of what those national states can acheive on their own, within capitalism. And that, my friend, is the best argument for keeping Haiti in poverty; it is the argument of the Latin American ruling classes.

    Are you aware what is the Marginalist theory? Will you still pretend that the same bottle of water has the same Value whether you lie in the middle of the Sahara or whether you're fishing in Finland's drinkable water lakes?
    Presumably it would have to be transported to the Sahara, thereby involving human work?

    But let us use a more pertinent example than the one you gave: "does the water in an oasis in the Sahara have the same value as the water in a Finnish Lake". The answer here is yes: why would you pay to drink something naturally occuring, whether in Finland or in the Sahara? The only explanation could be, if the oasis had been privately appropriated. But this would be sheer parasitism on the part of the owner, he would not have added any value, he would simply be fleecing his customers.

    How can a global economy be built on this basis? Marx asked, how then could the net wealth of all countries, of all trading partners, be increasing; the global economy be growing, the profits of all capitalists, and the consumption levels of the workers, all increasing, if value were the result of conning the consumer?

    Capitalism does not depend primarily on trading primary materials it depends on creating value. This can only be understood if we accept that this happens at the point of production, not at the point of trade, i.e. the extraction of surplus value from the worker.

    In the meantime, I humbly think it's better to act than to preach. It's only this way you can gather a true empirical experience of reality.
    That must be the first time you ever "humbly" did anything. But, I can "humbly" inform you, I do act, and I do not reject empirical experience. Again: the problem is that you defend broad political conclusions from narrow empirical evidence, in order to leave unspoken the decisive arguments about the national state and the capitalist system.
    "Of course we spent our money in the good times. That's what you're supposed to do in good times! You can't save money in the good times. Then they wouldn't be good times, they'd be 'preparation for the bad times' times."

    "Every country in the world owes money. Everyone. So heere's what I dont get: who do they all owe it to, and why don't we just kill the bastard and relax?"

    -Tommy Tiernan, Irish comedian.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENTJ] ENTJ's; how do you defend yourself against your supervisor "The ISTP's?"
    By Lindaxo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 12-10-2015, 06:41 AM
  2. How do you type someone with multiple personalities?
    By chasingAJ in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 01:03 PM
  3. [MBTItm] How do you motivate yourself?
    By cheerchick23 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-31-2009, 07:27 PM
  4. How do you type people?
    By yenom in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-26-2009, 04:12 PM
  5. [INFJ] INFJs how do you control yourself from jumping to conclusions?
    By Desert Flower in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 06:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO