Renewed Occupy movement?

But Sub-Saharian Africa and some parts of Asia (not all Asia) are the less capitalist parts of the world. They mainly live in a traditional economy, of mainly auto-suficiency. If a true capitalist system and markets existed there, people would had more wealth and they would had access to better products, to improve their daily lives.

And what do you think the solution to that problem is?

That in no way justifies it. The purpose of you doing that is to denigrate Kali and make yourself feel better. It's annoying and I wish you'd stop doing it.

Violating the individual sovereignty of every single person in the first world regardless of their relevance to the situation, obviously. Fuck motivated development.

For first world citizens to realize that there are consequences to their actions, and for them to realize that they are not the only humans in the world. First world citizens seem to believe they are better than others for living in the first world, which is obviously not true.

The purpose of me doing that is to try to get a response from Kali who has not responded to anything I have said, even though much of it was directed clearly at him.

How is it relevant whether they are capitalist or not? I'm saying that they are negatively effected by our activities. It doesn't matter if you socialist, communist, capitalist, or libertarian. You always need resources, and the first world countries are taking the resources from them.

This is totally my line of thought.

I'm not even sure I should continue asking questions. Leave "ought to" out of it, and just tell me what you would do if you could make the rules.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If he isn't going to respond when you actually quote his posts, why would he respond to a petty comment about him when you are talking to me? No, it's your own ego.

That's not what I want at all.

Americans are so lazy, they don't march they occupy.

At least occupy sounds good. If they called it "Sit Around Wall-street" then they'd really be fucked.

We already all know this. Remember? I'm in favor of a united world?

Because hes responded to that before. If hes going to ignore me, I'll take advantage of that.

I wasn't trying to suggest this was your line of thought. But, for many first world citizens this IS their line of thought.

That is a pretty high in the clouds and detached from reality solution.

Don't care. Just accept that you were being a prick and move on.

Welcome to modern socialism...god I hate my ideology sometimes...

Not really. Not to me. But I've had this argument before, where I have been forced to give answers to all the questions anyone can think of on what could go wrong with a united world, to which I often have answers. Believe me, this isn't just some random thing I decided, "Hey, I'll be a hipster and like say I want a United World man!". No, I have legitimately thought through many of the problems that a United World could have. And its not like our current world doesn't have problems, the world will always have problems, its just a matter of trying to minimize them.

Nah. Not everyone is going to be quite as unbiased as you.

Modern socialism has absolutely NOTHING to do with a United World.

If I choose not to respond to you, Mosh, it's probably because I don't feel like dignifying your remarks with a response. As I've said many times before, I consider you a spoiled, ignorant, child. You propose juvenile solutions to complex problems and do not grasp the fundamentals of the way in which the world operates. Until you stop clinging to wild, dystopian fantasies like "world unity", and accept that people should and do act according to their self-interests, I will continue to treat you as such.

I hate that word.

You have nowhere near the
a) Mental resources
and
b) Evidence and examples in history of a United World. (It's never ever happened, obviously.)
to "legitimately" think through this "United World" theory of yours. I'd suggest you drop the whole idea.

I'm not unbiased. It's just a matter of not acting like a child in discussion.

It seems to be a common word used on the forums.

No, your pretty unbiased.

Oh, and we have another personal attack from Kali, calling me immature, spoiled, and ignorant. Yet, in my experience, immature people tend to ignore whatever legitimate arguments people use against them. Spoiled people tend not to want to give stuff up, and ignorant people seem to stereotype millions of people and think themselves better than others! Hmmmmmm. Where have I seen someone who does all these things? Its a mystery!

You just ignored my legitimate argument.

Also, although Kali has probably been a little too critical of you, he brings up some good points. If you wanted to you could suck in your pride and maybe learn a few things.

I routinely employ hyperbole and sensationalist rhetoric because it makes people listen. It does have the side effect of making me very polarizing, but then, that spices things up around here in its own way. The way in which I post is largely self-parody, and if you go back to the earliest time on the forums, that's actually very apparent.

Kali is just a asshole, but I like assholes sometimes, even if there right-wing cissexist transphobic assholes. Because thats a large portion of humanity right now.

Yeah, accept it pisses people (especially me) off. Using hyperbole and personal attacks, as well as sensationalist rhetoric is highly unnecessary. Maybe I would make an attempt to actually read the bullshit in your posts if I didn't know they'd be full of random shit about whoever you were arguing with or whatever ideology you had decided to stereotype and slander this time.

I'm not getting into ANOTHER united world debate. If you want you can go continue the last debate about it, wherever that one was.

I actually have listened to Kali in the past. In example, it was he, Shaw, and Demondaze (primarily) that convinced me to stop calling myself a socialist, which I'm not.