Total Freedom of Speech is Bad

Perhaps not much, had I been inclined to respond directly my post would have been limited to a few lines.

I'm not sure if its the most important part of the argument, though certainly it is a part of it. However, the great speakers tended to attack ethos in such a way as to appear themselves quite admirable. This talent is perhaps something you should consider adopting as your insistence on such behaviour, bordering on abusive, may not be so easily tolerated by others more willing to look past it and then you would taste the hollow victory; that most bitter of fruits.

Of course, it remains a possibility that you simply enjoy insulting people and do so to obtain none other than this. Something entirely immoral and something that I think most people would agree should not be tolerated.

Perhaps try and exercise the same restraint used when trying not to swear in front of a young child. You will gain personal pleasure from the image of the opposition as incompetent and uneducated and the opposition need not be abused.

Neither do I. And I think you'd be hard placed to find someone who realistically argued for that. Certainly I'm not: so can we drop that rather absurd straw man for now.

Yes, because ignoring past mistakes has worked well for us in the past. Anyone who wouldn't have sent he failures of past systems and adapted them or creating new ones is incompetent, naive, mislead or a combination. Certainly I haven't so please see above.

Its not actually, significant research exists to suggest that humans have different relations to time. This is largely due to environmental and education factors. The current system relies on present-hedonistic thought to be dominant for its survival and, as such, encourages it. However, others, exhibit either positive or negative past or future thought patterns. Essentially the brain has a different perspective of fulfilment and purpose.

And before you go off, this isn't a case of "living for some alien future" or whatever. Its simply that different people have actual soft-wired perspectives of "good" goals and direction in life different from yours.

The fact that your tone is abusive, on a subject matter that is frankly irrelevant to the crux of the matter at the initial point of identification is something that I find to be an inhuman manner of behaviour. I pointed out a couple of your mistakes in a calm matter of fact way (apart from that sentence where I forgot sarcasm doesn't translate well into text (in reference to you correcting civilisation, which is the correct spelling, for civilzation which is correct in American) which I apologise for.) Indeed you do this latter on when my auto-correct used illicit instead of elicit.

Political ideology was the wrong choice of words; rather of a system of thought regarding the link between content and technical accuracy that is purely fictional. See above before you begin the rant about bettering peoples arguments by pointing out mistakes. I agree with that foundation.

Well "maintain" and "change" are dichotomies and the "world order" is essentially a function of the smaller elements you are willing to change. You are perhaps confounded by the fact you are present-hedonistic and I am future-positively minded: I can see how the many changes would add to "radical" shift in the world order over a length of time probably greater than my lifetime and my children's lifetime. Regardless as long as you are up for and recognise small changes are necessary I can at least use you in the short term. I'm not advocating violence and at no point did I as far as I'm aware. The world works, but not efficiently and not in the best interests of the commonality. You are left, you realise that. Unless your suggesting medical care is too easily available? Your not radical, but a present-hedonistic mindset rarely is.

I would agree, like I said the tower of human progress will continue to grow and the present level of humanity will be so far beneath us as to be almost unseen.

Indeed it is. And you missed a space after your full stop. Or two if you are inclined to that model of punctuation.

Well I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to express your ideas. As I said "restrictions, of the lightest, nature" if you can comprehend that. However, at its most fundamental level my privilege to express and idea that is, by its nature abusive; indeed, my ability to express abuse as an expression in itself is being infringed.

That said, if you are willing to accept my method in all but its name out of some desire to cling to the idea of unrestricted "rights" then by all means use whatever technicalities you like to appease yourself.

At the time she clearly thought she had an idea that was worth expressing. Whatever intoxication or other factors lead to this assessment are entirely irrelevant to the fundamental principle.

The manner is an important part of the expression itself, often it betrays and reveals a great deal of the content, sometimes more so than the actual linguistic content itself could. But again, see above for while I no longer care about your technical distinctions.

Correct, but as I said your education plays an important role in defining that "moral compass" What can be argued is which time relation we should attempt to develop. As future-positive increases the overall welfare of generations that come before while also leaving the current one fulfilled and with a good level of welfare I would argue for that.

Yet you feel fine calling future-positive socialists evil, and to abuse them quite frequently.

(Also, "behaviour". (This is a joke, again.))

I think I already responded to this. Consider my childish sense of humour to be your version of abuse. Except mine doesn't hurt fellow humans.

I've certainly never heard or seen it used over here. If it was I'd wager it would be considered slang use. But oh well.

Sorry, I genuinely forget sometimes that when I'm thinking internally some words have deeper meaning than when spoken. Anyway, "human" meaning a part of the social contract that allows for functioning and developing civilisation; which I would argue includes such a duty.

Well do forgive me for interpreting your misleading use of the word "maintain" as being to remain the same. And also for having the capability to see that small changes over time lead to radical ones. Still at least we agree on the basic ideology now, or at least one, even if we want to use different names and terms.

I think we all know what happens when marxists get power under the name of all those things.

The goal of argument is to convince an audience of your position. In some cases, however, they already agree with your position and simply don't wish to treat the opposition as particularly troublesome or incorrect. To that end, convincing them that your opponent is a terrible, inhuman abomination is extremely useful.

As ethos extends far beyond the immediate argument, that's rather impossible for me to do. However, there is a definite image that I'm trying to project, and it's certainly a positive one. I think my words evoke the necessary sentiments from the audience for them to see me in the manner I wish to be seen. In short, I both cannot and do not want to appear as an "admirable" speaker, especially not to the swarm of red filth that pore over my speech.

An additional point to make on the "cannot" side of things is that the people who I'd actually want to think of me as admirable are versed well enough in argument to spot such obvious tactics.

Of course I enjoy it. Rather, I enjoy insulting people that I don't like, and Scipio certainly qualifies as a member of that group.

See, this is what I'm talking about. The intent of your speech is so obvious that I doubt anyone would actually be swayed by it (unless they are considering the meta-argumentative perspective, in which case they might pat you on the back for using such a tactic in the first place). You need to be either extremely subtle, or extremely obvious with your intent for the audience to see it as anything more than a tactic to win them over. I clearly opted for the latter, and not just for argumentative reasons.

Well, that simply won't work. I gain personal pleasure directly from their abuse. You cannot, unfortunately, have your cake and eat it too.

Well, both Kara and Scipio certainly are. Thing you learn when dealing with those sickly, awkward creatures is that there's no such thing as a straw man. They are extreme enough to make excuses for the inexcusable, and possess the malicious intent necessary to strip us, as individuals, of our most basic rights (including life) in order to reach their hellish phantasm. It is not hyperbole to claim that those things wish to destroy the current world order, nor is it hyperbole to claim they think they have the knowledge to lead us into utopia. It's simply what they believe.

Communism is simply not relevant today. It describes a dead world, and it is a defeated ideology. More than that, it's obsolete. Its followers continue to sacrifice to it, and still engage in their unholy proselytizing, but for those of us who live in the real world, it is irrelevant. Capitalism has not produced the conditions that communists said it would, and as time goes on, the standard of living for those in capitalist nations has dramatically improved. Compromises between business and labor have been made, without any help from (in fact, much to the dismay of) the red hordes.

Would you please stop your nonsensical bullshit pseudoscience and take your scarf off? People are not simple enough beings to be summed up and categorized by such pretentious labels. And more than that, no matter the form of labeling you do, it's an inescapable fact that all humans act in a manner that suits them. You cannot "re-educate" the very essence of our existence. You shouldn't seek to, either. "Mental reprogramming" is nothing short of a true dystopian practice.

For the love of all that is good and right in the world, would you stop throwing around horrible buzzwords like candy? Their vapidity and the excessive punctuation they bring are soul-sucking.

There you go with your "objective morality". Nonsense. You say good, I say bad.

Inhuman? Really? I think it's extremely human. Uniquely so, even. Behaving according to some "objective" standard of morality, thinking progress is one-directional, and expecting men to live not for themselves; that's inhuman.

He didn't spell civilization correctly in either form. That's why I corrected him. Look for yourself.

Illicit does not make sense in the context you used it. Elicit fits perfectly. It's an obvious mistake, and easy to correct.

A lot of the time, mistakes are legitimately typos. Everyone makes them. They are still mistakes, and still be corrected, but they are not the result of ignorance. Many times, however, mistakes are made out of ignorance. A typo occurs when you know what should be done, but fail to properly execute it. Ignorant mistakes occur when you simply don't know what should be done, or think that something incorrect is correct. Because they are almost always separated only by intent, and because it improves the quality of the overall argument, it's important to correct both kinds of mistakes. While it's true that people may not learn anything from it, the fact of the matter is that it's actually impossible to learn if you don't recognize your mistakes. It's a lazy fool who protests the correction of his speech.

The key and critical juncture is not at "maintain" or "change", but at "world order." In other words, allowing the current international system to continue existing and developing as it is now.

No, it's not. I don't say world order with some kind of grandiose, metaphorical intent. I use it in the sense of a political scientist or international relations scholar. The international system, the system that political realism so perfectly describes, is worth preserving. Marxists and the rest have their hearts set on destroying not only it, but on destroying the global economy, and liberty. Truly, they are malevolent things, that would annihilate the foundations of all civilization, in exchange for a mere chance at bringing about their tyranny.

I strongly oppose that detestable notion that drives the foul red beasts, that "the ends justify the means," and so naturally I oppose change that operates with that as an underlying assumption. Violence isn't universally illegitimate, but the manner in which the stinking brutes and odious slugs would use it certainly is. They praise random violence and deliberately incite riots, terrorism, and war. Because they are so weak, their chance at affecting change in any meaningful way so low, and because they dwell on the periphery between zealot and lunatic, between man and beast, they support anything and everything that harms the status quo. It doesn't matter if it brings far more misery and chaos, or even if its directly harmful to their ideology. They are a spiteful, malign, zymotic menace, and hold only contempt and the basest lust in their hearts, if they can be said to have such things. Even history isn't immune to their bitterness, and they defend the wretchedest of criminals, going so far as to label them "comrades", in spite of the great ideological rift between them. Well, perhaps it's not such a great rift after all.

Those who would join them would only slap themselves in chains, and bind themselves to the earth. For the self, there is nothing. Sacrifice and expiation are all that await these profane supplicants.

Again with the buzzwords... You label yourself in this manner because you're pleased by how it categorizes you, no doubt, but I reject that classification altogether. It's sick, and stupid, and you use it in the most pretentious, unconscionable manner possible. Lording your pseudo-scientific labels over me does not make you better, and you're no different than those slithering forms for thinking that they actually mean something.

You actually can't see that. Whatever delusions you possess are just that: delusions. Reds do not have the capacity to see the future, and yet they not only claim to, but hedge their entire ideology on it. In that regard, reds are no different from the religious mystics that Demondaze describes, only they and their kind are infinitely more severe, and infinitely more grotesque for it.

You are unbelievably pretentious. It's suffocating. That sickeningly condescending attitude you have is no different than the one the reds possess. It should be plainly obvious why people so routinely reject you and your politics.

I wasn't aware that I was talking about you. Aside from the few times I directly mention you, my comments have been directed entirely at the people they describe. So, unless you describe yourself as one of those nameless abominations, and openly choose the bonds of slavery over freedom, don't take it personally.

The "best interests of the commonality" are imperceptible. We do not have the capacity, nor the right, to make judgements about what is the best for everyone. We know only what we want, and while you're free to act according to those desires, don't hide them in such filthy concepts as "the greater good".

No, I am not.

No, I do not. I do not pretend to know what is best for everyone. As I said, that's quite impossible for us humans. I know what I think is the best course of action, for me, or for my desires. That is the full extent of our ability to be certain about anyone's "best interests".

First off, "you're". Second, I don't think any intelligent human being would make the claim that medical care is too easily available.

I don't know what you're talking about. If there is no space after the period, that's because there are no sentences after it. Or, because I needed to format it according to the quote function on the site. In this case, it's both.

You are fully permitted to express abuse. You are free to call someone a detestable worm, if that suits you. You aren't free to shout obscenities in a crowded public space while intoxicated. It would make no difference if she was shouting about women's softball or about grapefruits: the reason she's punished is because acted inappropriately in a public space.

I have seen your "method" before, when we debated site policy. I take great issue with the idea that you can be punished for saying something true about someone else.

Except they're actually the only relevant thing. Whether or not you're intoxicated plays a very large role in whether or not you can be punished for something, as you aren't in your right mind. Many laws deal specifically with public drunkenness, and the primary reason she was punished at all (and this is clearly evidenced by her sentencing) is because she was intoxicated.

Manner is simply behavior. Certain behavior is deemed inappropriate by society and restricted, usually because it harms someone. Your ability to express ideas is not infringed because you are unable to light someone's house on fire and dance on its porch while speaking. Manner restrictions do not restrict speech or content, they restrict physical behavior.

Again, don't pull this shit. Education exists to teach us material facts. We gain perspective and morality as individuals, not as students. Your social engineering is bad science fiction, and bad dystopian science fiction at that.

They preach of objective morality and a "correct" future. When I say you cannot call them evil, I do not literally mean that we cannot call them evil. Speech falls under the category of persuasion. What I mean instead, is that they are not moral hypocrites, and thus are not immoral. As the most you can ask of a man is for him to do what he thinks is right, it is impossible for any evil except moral hypocrisy to exist. I do believe that the reds are moral hypocrites, but I also use the term evil to describe those who may not actually be moral hypocrites because the word evil carries with it significant connotations that are argumentatively and linguistically useful to me.

It's certainly not slang use. If anything, it's antiquated.

No man is born with any obligation. We do not choose life and we cannot be held accountable for having been born. We owe nothing to "the community" and certainly not to "civilization".

Maintain was properly used. You simply didn't read the entire statement. I've already been over this once before.

That's actually just wrong. Small changes do not cause radical changes simply because time passes. Radical changes about suddenly and completely, hence their name. As well, you again assume, as reds do, that change and progress have only one direction, which is so ignorant and full of so much hubris that I'm physically sickened by the thought that people like that exist.

And again with your pretentious, condescending, hipster bullshit. You're not superior to anyone.

I seriously doubt we agree about anything basic. You have expressed support for the most abominable sentiments and corrupted notions around. You also display an obvious and inflated sense of superiority, which is natural among your scaly, inhuman brethren. Maybe you're not a red, but you're of the same intolerable brood.

I haven't seen this much intellect in quite some time, damn. I learned like thirty new words.

It is important to recognize the role of free speech within dystopian societies portrayed by many Twentieth Century writers, many of whom were disturbed by the current system of the world and the foreseeable geo-political and socio-economic trends of their time. Most became disillusioned with the social, economic, and political norms during and after the bloodshed of the World Wars, and to a lesser extent in the United States, the rise of organized crime and lawlessness during Prohibition. Works like 1984, Harrison Bergeron, Fahrenheit 451, and Brave New World all represent the ideas and views of their authors on the possible route society could take. These authors were the 'modern prophets' of sorts: these men were outcasts looking in from the fringes of society and put to paper their worst nightmares. These worlds have become some of the most vivid and foreboding settings in Western literature, and have had great effect on Western society. Now, to the point. There is a common theme within most dystopian works. It is not of capitalism, or communism, or right, or left. The nightmare which these men and women feared was that of the death of freedom of speech and thought. It is a powerful statement when the most disillusioned and rejected of society uniformly and unilaterally state that their greatest fear is that one day, society will decide that any dissent from what is "right" or "beneficial" will be brutally silenced. Claims have, can, and will be made that simple imprisonment or forced re-education are benign and wholesome methods of achieving utopia, and do not harm the public at large. That has been, is, and will always be an absolute falsehood. When society is restricted by a singular 'right' and those who dissent are forcibly silenced, there might as well be executions in the street. The total restriction of free speech only leads to unimaginable fear and dystopia, not the utopia that has been promised now on this forum, much like the various utopias promised in the past. What must be understood is that a utopia is not about everyone getting along, or working together peacefully. It is about each man, woman, and child being able to say the words "I disagree" without fear. While I will not resort to the level of Kali's verbal lashings, I will leave those of you with a few words for thought:

You have just posted your opinions about free speech on the forum. A few hours later you are facing a plain brick wall. Because of your dissent from the norm, in moments you brains will give that wall a fresh coat of paint. Welcome to your utopia.

Well, if your just looking to ego-stroke your own side then yeah go ahead. In other situations I'd say that logos is most important, as that's probably most likely to sway those whom I want to sway, while pathos will probably garner the most support from those who would be undecided as it were.

A fortunately small amount of people gain pleasure from similar abhorrent acts.

Having not discussed too much with them I will take your word for it. Although I am certain they would describe their ideology differently. Certainly, Scipio's suggestion that she be "locked away until her ideas change" is entirely abhorrent and I do not believe the current method of justice to be sufficient. Moreover, I wouldn't want her core ideas to change, just her ideas about what is an acceptable form of expression.

Neither is particularly relevant as neither will re-emerge. Both underwent a synthesis and while I freely admit that the traits of liberal-democracy and capitalism where the more dominate ones the system took on large parts of socialistic thought. As is the way of such things. The "red hordes" are an extremist faction, akin to the similarly repulsive extreme reactionaries of the right. Neither should be taken seriously accept to establish that those who inhabit the more fertile lands of the middle areas are dissociated with them.

An while I freely admit that the OP exhibited behaviour of such extremes there was some merit in a more reserved form of his basic point, which one might be quick to overlook if we jump too quickly to utterly destroy that which we can all agree is close to dead anyway.

At principle, even if poorly stated I believe he was arguing, as we have come to accept, that restrictions must be placed on the manner in which ideas are expressed.

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1999-15054-013
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pag/17/1/125/


Can only find extracts. Unhelpfully the RSA don't provide article links so I had to try and dig them up myself. (And frankly I'm tired.)

I will point out this hypothesis of cognitive behaviour is still a relatively young area of psychology but its not like I'm making this shit up myself.

The whole crux of what I said relies on a subjective morality.Perhaps if I'd put "good" in quotation marks it would have helped but I didn't think it would cause this much confusion. I say bad because of the relationship I have with time, you say bad because the same difference. You would provide a much better boost to your own self-stated goals by correcting the mistakes in a non-abusive manner: it would more likely garner the response of improvement. Everyone would be more likely to benefit, but your personal pleasure would be reduced slightly.

Fair enough, I may have been mislead by a later post which I seem to recall highlighting the "z", but you are correct.

I thought I'd already thanked you for this and moved on.

I placed emphasis on the wrong phrase, easy to do in text especially when tired.

I presume you mean neo-realism, seeing as realism basically admitted defeat and re-invented itself fifty odd years ago. I a lot of scholars seem to take issue with your "perfectly describes" statement. Many elements can be, I think more accurately described by rational-choice models and in others by "postmodernism" though I wish they would come up with a better name than that.

Regardless, even realism existed to describe an international system that is a product of its component. A change in the components creates different situations and different responses from the actors, and I really hope you're not limiting actors to states. The realist model collapsed when these small changes meant the overall system was behaving differently to what it described and it had to change. I don't think it's improbable that it could happen again and indeed there has been a large growth in such models recently as globalism and an increased shift in priorities has occurred in the world.

That's fine, just please realise you can be left and not an extremist. You can argue for small incremental, peaceful changes towards a new system and not be the spawn of all evil.

As I said, it is a growing part of psychological thought. I'm not saying its certainly correct but to my mind it helps explain a lot of phenomenon regarding human behaviour.

The ability to predict possible consequences of actions is a well established ability of the human mind, and of most sentient minds. When basic human intellect and curiosity is added it stands to reason that we would want to predict further and further ahead. And as I said I can't be sure, perhaps I should have said "I can see how many small changes could potentially lead to..." but to limit your ability to compare ideologies to a view that the immediate is here and lets only look at that and not try and predict outcomes surely can't be productive.

And you're unbelievably abusive. Still, if it causes you displeasure I will try and restrain myself.

I don't think any rejection of any political ideology is ever plainly obvious, especially to its adherents. Certainly, I often find it difficult to succinctly explain why I reject different ideologies entirely, and often find myself adopting positive aspect from them or attempting to at least.

Not for everyone in the strictest sense but I think we agree it is in the common good that everyone should have access to enough food to survive, to medical care, to housing. In the sense that it not only benefits everyone but also every one.

As I have said altruism is a concept that some mindsets view as being good in and of itself. Regardless, I don't think it is beyond the rational powers of the human mind to look at a situation and see that there can be an alleviation of suffering and a great amount of pleasure created from the sacrifice of a small amount of one's own. This is surely by definition acting for "the greater good"?

Well you said that things can be improved, and mentioned examples which would be identify you as someone "left" of conservatism. Perhaps not far to the left but certainly not the other way, towards reactionary policy.

Thank you.

Mhh, possibly. The site does tend to just dump everything you write into one unending block of text.If so, my apologies.

Well I don't think you should be free to abuse people. Its restriction does not affect the ability of the privilege of free expression to function as desired and it protects people's right to exist in a secure and safe public environment. Regardless, its all a matter of line drawing, for some reason you attach importance to "swear words" and the like as if they have some magical power to hurt people over and above other words and manners of expression. And if intoxicated is the crucial point then are you free to shout obscenities in a crowded place while sober; even if you freely admit to having only the goal of abusing people in mind. (I know that is not what happened here but its a hypothetical.)

Fixed.

Well I'm just taking a broader view of the term freedom of expression, one that starts at the higher end and sees "you cannot express yourself while drunk in a manner of x" as a restriction.

Only if its abusive. Something which is true can be expressed in a non-abusive fashion perfectly well. For instance: "I find your paedophilia to be an improper way of acting because x, y and z" and "You filthy fucking paedophile, I would beat you to death with my own hands if I could. You're an absolutely detestable piece of filth that deserves a slow and horrifying death."

As she was intoxicated surely it should be relaxed. She shouldn't be punished while sober for shouting out obscenities while drunk as her drunken state induced an action her sober one would not enter. She could be punished for getting drunk, as that was a decision made while sober.

You can express ideas through behaviour. And in that situation your freedom of action is being restricted, in a perfectly reasonable way. If you turned around and claimed you were expressing an Idea via that action I would simply say that that form of expression is restricted. The two rights being rather necessarily linked I think.

That's rather an antiquated view of education. "Education is the lighting of a fire, not the filling of a pail" Thomas Paine (I think).

Surely, you can't deny that education plays a massive role in shaping the perspective and morality of those that undergo it.

I see, this can be confusing especially when used in both manners in close proximity.

Ah I ken, an archaism. Often they appear as slang, for instance ken.

I know, and it annoys me that we don't allow a choice for people to accept or reject civilisation and return to the state of nature. However, you owe a great deal to "the community" and "civilisation" not only for your health and comfort but for almost all aspects of your existence, and as part of that civilisation everyone else owes duties to you as well.

Radical doesn't actually imply a time-scale, just that the change would be fundamental or drastic. However, I will concede it can have connotations to some of that inclination that it must be sudden and immediate. So read as massive changes instead. I don't assume that, I accept that reactionary people exist, I almost value their idea over conservative ones more because at least they are willing to admit change needs to happen, and have some suggestions of a reasonable nature. I think they are probably wrong in the whole, but often they contain useful ideas that can be synthesised.

My mind is absolutely blown by the giant essays written by TheEmperorAugustus and Kali. I haven't seen this much intelligence on this forums since...well since Kali and Augustus went at it before. This folks, is how real people debate.

But the fact is that Kali is also one of the major causes of other threads breaking down and turning into insult-ridden boils that needs to be eradicated. He can certainly have a highly intellectual debate if he feels like it and somewhat respects his opponent, but will not hesitate to destroy a constructive debate with his destructive insults if he feels like it at the detriment of other forum members.
And while it's truly refreshing to see a change of pace from the normal debates, there's also the whole problem that it's simply impossible to connect the dots in these huge posts. This is not how debating is supposed to go down. The two sides should stick to a couple of important points and not begin to weave this giant web of elaborate, but ultimately somewhat unnecessary separate discussions/arguments that any audience no matter their level of intellect would have trouble connecting to the overarching debate.
Or at least that's how I feel...

Why thank you. I will hope to continue this trend as long as my health continues to be conducive to, well, living in general.

Thank you as well. I must say I agree. I try to cut out and not respond to bits that I feel aren't relevant or have been covered before and I'm sure Kali does this were appropriate as well, but this runs the risk of a "just ignore what I said" response. Even I find it confusing and often have to scroll up and down when responding to remind myself of exactly what has been said. I find it amusing that my account often times out before I can post. If it was a spoken debate I would certainly limit my response, as would simple time rules. However, one of the nice things about this format is we can, if we desire, respond to everything.

For the sake of everyone else I will try and keep the responses concise.

While written debates aren't the same as spoken, they should still be based on the same basic principles. It's an art in itself to write short and precise, while not dumbing down the debate, and it's something I try to do in a lot of my posts though I also fall into the trap of dividing posts up and responding separately, which almost inevitably leads to confusion and derailing.
And thanks

Holy jesus, I'm not reading all that. So, yeah, kudos to everyone.

Whew, I thought I was the only one. I mean, I started reading all of it, and at some point I just couldn't continue. If that damned internet would actually work I probably wouldn't have that much trouble with keeping up, but damn these guys just keep going at it.

When the Marxists are done telling people how they would lock them up can I hand out cookies?

No. Cookies will be illegal. Unless you sign a form stating that you will only use them to throw at capitalists.

There are no ingredients in the stores because of the wacky central planning...

What? No cookies? THAT'S IT! WE WILL MARCH ON THE STREETS AND TAKE BACK WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY OURS!

I am indignant that you didn't mention me.

All that hard work going to waste...

Well, looks like someone(the emperor augustus) broke the game guys! Seriously i was terrified by the idea that kali & kara were going to turn this thread into another "capitalism vs communism insults dictionary", but then that man (the emperor augustus ) came to the rescue and saved this thread.

Manly tears were shed.

I apologise profusely but: I just lost The Game.

*waves a black anarchy flag and hands out cookies*