Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 108

Thread: Rereading Karl Marx

  1. #21

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    1. There is no such thing as perfect world. Hence by your assertion, Marx cannot be right. QED.

    2. The individual's self-interest is the basis on which any economic ideology must be based. Any ideology which believes that man will give of himself freely to the state contradicts this and thus is self-defeating.
    well, it depends on what you define as "right".

    you see, in philosophy there is the relative concept of "validity" as opposed to "soundness".

    if we examine marx's argument/logic rudimentarily - then you cannot deny that he is valid, given certain premises, i.e. that humans are not self-serving. if the premises STAND, then by his flow of logic, he is not wrong.

    of course, we all know that humans are always self-serving, and the premises will never stand, thus it is not a sound argument. nonetheless, because it is valid, it can be considered to be right, only to a certain degree. i hope i'm not sounding too argumentative here, just presenting my point of view on what constitutes right and wrong.

    to give an example of a ridiculous valid argument:
    1. cows have wings
    2. all animals with wings can fly
    3. cows can fly

    so if you say marx was entirely wrong, i don't think it is as simplistic as that. he was definitely overly optimistic about human behaviour though.

    as for #2, there are many situations whereby economic rationality flies out of the window. just for the sake of argument, do you not agree that there are people who exist that might actually place the wellbeing of the state before self? and if we gather these people, no matter how few, and dump them onto an island where a socialist ideology, that socialism might work in that micro-community? (even though undoubtedly all the capitalist countries will seek to undermine that way of thought and life) this is a thought experiment, if you are familiar with the term, and not meant to be realistic. i hope no one comes barging in and starts complaining about how silly it sounds, because the matrix was based on another thought experiment.. and no one complained about how silly it sounded.

  2. #22

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by Benign View Post
    Maybe time and again in life, we need crisis of some sort. So, we know we are smarter or dumber?
    something someone mentioned to me in passing that i'll always remember:

    what is crisis in chinese? 危机。split the two, you have danger, and opportunity.

    every dark cloud has a silver lining, it's up to you to find it.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    C'mon guys dun be naive or simplistic, or even arrogant.

    Anyone here thinks u can do Alan Greenspan's job?

    And Greenspan was wrong, and not because he is stupid or that he has no data - i hate the word info - he had 40 years of evidence.

    Just think(!) on that.

    And also some simple illustrations of the failure of the market via the pricing mechanism.

    There was a free car park in my neighbourhood for residents to use. Some freeloaders decided to use the carpark as it was also near a shopping centre. The familiar solution: make people pay to use the car park. So now what used to be free, and a need and a necessity, costs me money, and the freeloaders just goes of to freeload elsewhere. (I think a similar argument can be made for the ERP.)

    There is no need for cosmetic surgery. But there is plenty of money there as rich people wants to be beautiful. And so instead of more GP creating more basic medical service which - at least in theory - makes the price of basic medical care go down, now we have expensive basic medical care, and useless "high value added" cosmetic surgery. And so poor people die, and rich people die beautiful.

    Economics is to lead to "efficient utilisation of resources". Questions are: does the free(?) market and price do it? (whatever "it" means); and secondly, is it the same as whoever needs the resources gets it, instead of who has the money gets it, whether they need it or just wanted it in a whimsical flight of fancy? Or should not economics be who needs who gets, and the degree of meeting needs being the measure of economics effectiveness, efficiency being irrelevant.

    Or to put it in more familiar terms, the one who gets to own a FF camera is the one who needs it or merely because he can pay for it amongst many other toys? Does the latter really leads "efficient utilisation of resources" or just richer Canon and Nikon?
    Last edited by espion; 25th October 2008 at 06:35 PM.

  4. #24

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    There was a free car park in my neighbourhood for residents to use. Some freeloaders decided to use the carpark as it was also near a shopping centre. The familiar solution: make people pay to use the car park. So now what used to be free, and a need and a necessity, costs me money, and the freeloaders just goes of to freeload elsewhere. (I think a similar argument can be made for the ERP.)

    There is no need for cosmetic surgery. But there is plenty of money there as rich people wants to be beautiful. And so instead of more GP creating more basic medical service which - at least in theory - makes the price of basic medical care go down, now we have expensive basic medical care, and useless "high value added" cosmetic surgery. And so poor people die, and rich people die beautiful.

    Economics is to lead to "efficient utilisation of resources". Questions are: does the free(?) market and price do it? (whatever "it" means); and secondly, is it the same as whoever needs the resources gets it, instead of who has the money gets it, whether they need it or just wanted it in a whimsical flight of fancy? Or should not economics be who needs who gets, and the degree of meeting needs being the measure of economics effectiveness, efficiency being irrelevant.

    Or to put it in more familiar terms, the one who gets to own a FF camera is the one who needs it or merely because he can pay for it amongst many other toys? Does the latter really leads "efficient utilisation of resources" or just richer Canon and Nikon?
    1) carpark: in the first place, how is giving residents a free carpark "efficient utilisation of resources"? i do not see the link between the example and a "failure of the pricing mechanism". perhaps if you went into greater detail to show the perceived link? how, in any way, do the residents deserve a greater right to a free carpark compared to people who make the effort to find a free carpark? territorial rights? that is such a prehistoric mentality.

    2) basic healthcare is at a reasonable level, i don't really see "poor people dying" because of cold, flu, etc, unless you are talking about developing countries, where the healthcare system is relatively unstructured. if one must gripe, one should gripe about the expensive killer diseases, but it is a sticky ground, and has nothing to do with General Practitioners, more to do with chemical/medical research companies. if one does not provide an incentive (in this case monetary) for them to push for breaking ground in the area of cancer, heart disease, aids.. then no one will do the job, since it involves a huge amount of capital which has limited guarantee of a payback in the long run.

    why gripe about cosmetic surgery? if one wishes to be so anally pedantic and obsessed about appropriate utilisation of resources, let's take the most common and base form of cosmetic surgery into consideration - botox. now, tell me - what can the toxin be used for other than cosmetic surgery? i suspect your answer will be "not much".. so in such a case, that is the most efficient utilisation of the particular resource.

    how about silicon breast implants? how about plastic surgeons who have been trained to do the job? are you by any means suggesting that you can by some arcane form of alchemy convert these into flu medicine and cough mixtures?

    3) whoever gets what they need. define a need. technically we were more than alright during the stone age. we were more than alright during the period where fire was not discovered. what constitutes a need? what has driven technological progress? needs? i doubt it. want is the thing that drives technological progress. and one could argue that we do not need technology, but that's besides the point. thomas maltus predicted that population growth would far surpass the earth's capacity to produce food. if everyone was happy with what they needed, what would have happened to the human race in the long run?

    if everyone got what they needed, i.e. a redistribution of wealth, with everyone living in a compartmentalised apartment, receiving the same food stamps.. then what of progress? is there any incentive to do better? is there any incentive to work? that is one basis for the failing of socialism - if a worker does not work, he sits on his arse and shits and eats and does nothing - what can the state do to him? it can do nothing, it has to provide him his needs. and what happens? other workers see, and do you think they will just carry on like mindless drones?

    similarly, if everyone got what they needed, to put it bluntly, what gives a disabled child the right to more aid than a normal child? by birthright? that doesn't really sound right in your definition of a fair world, does it? do you think you too, are being too optimistic about the feasibility of such a scenario (undoubtedly Utopian)? how can you measure need? if i grow to be heavier than person b, does this mean i deserve more food? what if i can survive on less, but i feel hungry? is that a need or a want?

    4) that has nothing to do with needs. who really needs a camera? you are really confusing needs and wants here.



    lastly, 40 years of data/information, accurate or not, means nothing. are you going to say that induction logic works? i do not deny that much of science is based on that shaky concept.. but in truth, do you think it really can hold?
    Last edited by night86mare; 25th October 2008 at 07:08 PM.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    carpark: Do I have to pay for others' "ungracious" habits? Do I have to pay for people's greed?

    healthcare: its obvious you have not seen people - esp poor people - dying.

    botox. why are resources and energy and labour consumed and greenhouses gases and pollutants generated to make people beautiful and not healthy?

    why cant everyone gets what they need? Not a reasonable goal for any society/system? All the brains and minds in all the world cannot designed/conceived such a system?

    if science is shaky, economics is not?

  6. #26

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    1. This is not philosophy class.

    2. Your arguments are becoming spurious.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    well, it depends on what you define as "right".

    you see, in philosophy there is the relative concept of "validity" as opposed to "soundness".

    if we examine marx's argument/logic rudimentarily - then you cannot deny that he is valid, given certain premises, i.e. that humans are not self-serving. if the premises STAND, then by his flow of logic, he is not wrong.

    of course, we all know that humans are always self-serving, and the premises will never stand, thus it is not a sound argument. nonetheless, because it is valid, it can be considered to be right, only to a certain degree. i hope i'm not sounding too argumentative here, just presenting my point of view on what constitutes right and wrong.

    to give an example of a ridiculous valid argument:
    1. cows have wings
    2. all animals with wings can fly
    3. cows can fly

    so if you say marx was entirely wrong, i don't think it is as simplistic as that. he was definitely overly optimistic about human behaviour though.

    as for #2, there are many situations whereby economic rationality flies out of the window. just for the sake of argument, do you not agree that there are people who exist that might actually place the wellbeing of the state before self? and if we gather these people, no matter how few, and dump them onto an island where a socialist ideology, that socialism might work in that micro-community? (even though undoubtedly all the capitalist countries will seek to undermine that way of thought and life) this is a thought experiment, if you are familiar with the term, and not meant to be realistic. i hope no one comes barging in and starts complaining about how silly it sounds, because the matrix was based on another thought experiment.. and no one complained about how silly it sounded.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    1. This is not philosophy class.

    2. Your arguments are becoming spurious.
    1. and i am not entitled to approach it philosophically? is there *ahem* any kopitiam policy that says that philosophy is a taboo approach to discussion? i have allowed you another form of approach, and the same amount of respect should be repaid, i didn't exactly ask for a reply actually.

    2. ditto.
    Last edited by night86mare; 25th October 2008 at 11:28 PM.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    carpark: Do I have to pay for others' "ungracious" habits? Do I have to pay for people's greed?

    healthcare: its obvious you have not seen people - esp poor people - dying.

    botox. why are resources and energy and labour consumed and greenhouses gases and pollutants generated to make people beautiful and not healthy?

    why cant everyone gets what they need? Not a reasonable goal for any society/system? All the brains and minds in all the world cannot designed/conceived such a system?

    if science is shaky, economics is not?
    1. carpark: what makes you think that you are paying? in the first place, why shouldn't you have to pay for use of a parking space? hmmm?

    2. i have, and there are many other ways to die than from illness. and what does this have to do with the argument? this is a null point, and is very juvenile. it equates to arguments that if i have not been to the war in iraq i cannot present an opinion on it.

    3. botox and needs: it is a matter of degree. you can either support the frills or you can't at all. take for example - clean water, cars, computers. does one really need a computer to survive? after all, what does one need to survive? in primary school we all learn that food, air and water are all the basic needs. then it expanded into shelter, clean water, healthcare, etc.

    somehow along the way, a good transportation system, a good safety net system for health, a good this and that, cars, it support all came into the equation. this is progress.

    can YOU say what i need? i can claim that i might go insane without the provision of a sunset scene everyday, and what if i did? does this mean that based on this, your proposed way of governance and system should provide me with a means and time to view a sunset everyday?

    it is so hard to define a need, or to draw out a map of people's utility, what they actually need and what they want. mind over matter - a want can be wanted so badly that it has become a need. this is how anorexia, and other psychological defects like OCD come into play.

    even if you say that it can be done, can you imagine the VAST amount of resources wasted just to cater to special needs? and what if person a needs more resources than person b.. are you telling me that based on your observations of today's people, person b will be content with what he has, even though he has all that he needs?

  9. #29
    Senior Member Hommie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    925

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by Benign View Post
    Personally, I prefer a mixed economy. Best of both worlds? Nothing is certain....
    Striving for a free market economy with a degree of government intervention is most ideal. Then again how do you balance the two. On one hand, everyone would love to have lower taxes. On the other, welfare for the poor is equally important too. Can we achieve the equilibrium?

    Every country is unique due to its own limitations in resources, technology and education...etc etc. So there can never be applied the same way.

    Whatever the crisis maybe, I strongly believe in a Chinese parable:

    Near China's northern borders lived a man well versed in the practices of Taoism. His horse, for no reason at all, got into the territory of the northern tribes. Everyone commiserated with him.

    "Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a blessing," said his father.

    After a few months, his animal came back, leading a fine horse from the north. Everyone congratulated him.

    "Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a cause of misfortune," said his father.


    Since he was well-off and kept good horses his son became fond of riding and eventually broke his thigh bone falling from a horse. Everyone commiserated with him.

    "Perhaps this will soon turn out to be a blessing," said his father.

    One year later, the northern tribes started a big invasion of the border regions. All able-bodied young men took up arms and fought against the invaders, and as a result, around the border nine out of ten men died. This man's son did not join in the fighting because he was crippled and so both the boy and his father survived.




    Maybe time and again in life, we need crisis of some sort. So, we know we are smarter or dumber?
    That is taoist Philosophy, wanna hear the tiger one? Heheh!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SGee
    Posts
    1,572

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    can YOU say what i need?
    from wad u posted so far, the thing u need seems obvious. could use a more civil tone here.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    it is so hard to define a need, or to draw out a map of people's utility, what they actually need and what they want. mind over matter - a want can be wanted so badly that it has become a need. this is how anorexia, and other psychological defects like OCD come into play.
    if wants can become so overwhelming till it becomes a need, den likely its an addiction.

    addictions need a cure. defined simple enough? hehee...

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    even if you say that it can be done, can you imagine the VAST amount of resources wasted just to cater to special needs? and what if person a needs more resources than person b.. are you telling me that based on your observations of today's people, person b will be content with what he has, even though he has all that he needs?
    the same can be said for grooming exceptionally talented (or thought to be so) individuals in the field of sports, music & the likes.
    Last edited by sORe-EyEz; 26th October 2008 at 01:28 AM.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by sORe-EyEz View Post
    from wad u posted so far, the thing u need seems obvious. could use a more civil tone here.

    if a person is medically not of a sound mind, in ur case OCD (wads that huh?). den treatment would be a need. if such cases can be identified den its easier to define needs from wants.

    needs & wants are in fact defined by for example, social welfare groups, gahmen & VWOs.

    the same can be said for grooming exceptionally talented (or thought to be so) individuals in the field of sports, music & the likes.
    but i don't mean anything personally - strong words are strong words, but they are just for the sake of discussion, to make a point. i'm sure espion is more than mature enough to take what i say in stride since we have had such discussions before. in my defense, i have not made any attack on his personage, or character - only the points he has brought up. i think it is only fair to be upfront with regards to what i think of his argument, else we may get.. misunderstood here.

    if you don't find the tone civil.. you should go watch the us election progress.

    ocd is obsessive compulsive disorder - a mild example being say, someone who cannot step out of the house, because he will experience worries about whether he has forgotten to turn off the gas, or whether he has forgotten the keys. varying degrees can be quite scary - a mild one would simply mean he'd check 8 or 9 times, and get delayed for half an hour.. a serious degree would end up with him never being able to go out. but i may be giving a very frivolous example, you can look up this on the internet.

    the human psyche is a very interesting thing - even till today no psychologist can ever be successfully sure whether he has treated a patient properly. if that's so, how do you identify needs accurately? that is my main point - people are so different, and the psyche is only but one faucet of many more!

    how do governmental organisations, social welfarism define needs and wants? what of allergies? what of interesting diseases like this particular medical condition that requires the patient to be away from any form of uv light? everyone is vastly different, and has their very own unique set of needs.

    so what if a sadomasochistic person says that he needs a dominatrix to whip him everyday in order for him to function.. what will his needs be, determined by the state or any "support organisation" that you suggest to be coined for the sake of addressing that group? it will never end - the discussion and debate whether to treat his fetish, or to just give it to him.

    these are just but many examples - but they are sadly true. saying that it is "easy to determine everybody's individual needs" is undoubtedly taking the problem way too simplistically.. don't you reckon?

    as for elitism, let's not bring that into the equation.. not because it is irrelevant, but more of the fact that troublemakers will come in and hijack the interesting discussion we have here. but yes, the same arguments apply.
    Last edited by night86mare; 26th October 2008 at 01:33 AM.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    SGee
    Posts
    1,572

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    but i don't mean anything personally - strong words are strong words, but they are just for the sake of discussion, to make a point. i'm sure espion is more than mature enough to take what i say in stride since we have had such discussions before.

    ocd is obsessive compulsive disorder - a mild example being say, someone who cannot step out of the house, because he will experience worries about whether he has forgotten to turn off the gas, or whether he has forgotten the keys. varying degrees can be quite scary - a mild one would simply mean he'd check 8 or 9 times, and get delayed for half an hour.. a serious degree would end up with him never being able to go out. but i may be giving a very frivolous example, you can look up this on the internet.

    the human psyche is a very interesting thing - even till today no psychologist can ever be successfully sure whether he has treated a patient properly. if that's so, how do you identify needs accurately? that is my main point - people are so different, and the psyche is only but one faucet of many more!

    how do governmental organisations, social welfarism define needs and wants? what of allergies? what of interesting diseases like this particular medical condition that requires the patient to be away from any form of uv light? everyone is vastly different, and has their very own unique set of needs.

    so what if a sadomasochistic person says that he needs a dominatrix to whip him everyday in order for him to function.. what will his needs be, determined by the state or any "support organisation" that you suggest to be coined for the sake of addressing that group? it will never end - the discussion and debate whether to treat his fetish, or to just give it to him.

    these are just but many examples - but they are sadly true. saying that it is "easy to determine everybody's individual needs" is undoubtedly taking the problem way too simplistically.. don't you reckon?

    as for elitism, let's not bring that into the equation.. not because it is irrelevant, but more of the fact that troublemakers will come in and hijack the interesting discussion we have here. but yes, the same arguments apply.
    ok den, if u say so...

    oh OCD. thanks for explaining.

    agree, there's no 1 size fits all. but the norm is derived from a sample size for a given population. how "severe" (cant think of a better word) a fetish is may determine if treatment is needed. thatz why individuals with special needs (identified as such) are allocated with more resources.

    to a certain extent, elitism can also be said with the same breath, which is unfortunate. some issues cut both ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    can you imagine the VAST amount of resources wasted just to cater to special needs?

  13. #33

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    I think this is a great time to examine the economic and political model that's been taken for granted as the right way to go for the past god knows how many years.

    Do you think that a economic model based on continuous consumerism is sustainable?

    How closely related are stock prices of a company in relation to the performance of the company?

    How does that affect the decisions made by the company?

    It is a bit of a relief for this whole crisis to happen actually...I don't believe that an economic model based on the constant consumption of new objects/services is sustainable, and it encourages a mentality of constant upgrading (social status, material goods, etc etc) which is just a state of constant dissatisfaction

    Call me an idealist but I would like to see whether there's a better solution in which the planet's resources are channeled towards the progression of collective human knowledge, such as in the arena of science/medicine/education, such as what Google and Bill Gates are working towards.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    I believe that given the choice, most humans would select selfish short term needs. Given a system that enshrines Money as the ultimate goal, the extreme form of capitalism that sees **** constantly being churned out to make money seems like a dead end.
    Here's to a reconsideration for systems that look to goals beyond making money / constant competition.

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    near the Equator
    Posts
    1,255

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Recommendation : Go watch Star Trek. Understand the ramifications of a collectivist society, it's light enough not to cause academic piles.

    There is merit in the argument for a world with better appropriation of resources, instead of everincreasing consumption and a race-to-the-bottom wage policy that is girding this consumption, in pre and post effect.
    Last edited by LazerLordz; 26th October 2008 at 02:13 AM.
    We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities. - Oscar Wilde

  16. #36

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by sORe-EyEz View Post

    to a certain extent, elitism can also be said with the same breath, which is unfortunate. some issues cut both ways.
    it depends on how you view elitism, if we look at it fundamentally, and assume a good selection system, this is the wikipedia definition, which is quite accurate:

    Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern [1]. Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of the elite.
    in many sense, elitism is simply a form of meritocracy. in fact, most democratic systems are run on the fact that "a select group of people with outstanding abilities" can run the country (to a certain extent freely) and should be given the power to decide. however, in recent years and times it has often been mixed up with discrimination - i.e. that people with higher abilities are given special rights over others. the two are not equal, and elitism is not really a bad thing , just a point of view, which can be right and wrong depending on how you look at it.

  17. #37

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    I think this is a great time to examine the economic and political model that's been taken for granted as the right way to go for the past god knows how many years.

    Do you think that a economic model based on continuous consumerism is sustainable?

    How closely related are stock prices of a company in relation to the performance of the company?

    How does that affect the decisions made by the company?

    It is a bit of a relief for this whole crisis to happen actually...I don't believe that an economic model based on the constant consumption of new objects/services is sustainable, and it encourages a mentality of constant upgrading (social status, material goods, etc etc) which is just a state of constant dissatisfaction

    Call me an idealist but I would like to see whether there's a better solution in which the planet's resources are channeled towards the progression of collective human knowledge, such as in the arena of science/medicine/education, such as what Google and Bill Gates are working towards.
    idealists are those who wish to see the world as a better place, and i cannot help but agree a lot with you here - constant dissatisfaction is a very common problem these days in not just OUR society, but elsewhere. it is a global trend.

    nonetheless, i don't really think it possible to have a global "direction" or collective pool of resources.. it is plausible, but not probable. maybe a shift in direction, a moderate ground can be achieved, some form of hybrid compromise.. but certainly not what was originally suggested in the thread.. which i doubt you would endorse either (feel free to dispute this if you disagree). there are so many kinks along the way, so many problems to be resolved (like the hellhole of africa, for example).. before we can even dream of this direction.. and when have we ever gotten even half the world to agree doing something together?

    disparity is unavoidable, that is probably a known truth, but it should not be emphasized or flaunted.
    Last edited by night86mare; 26th October 2008 at 06:35 AM.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    but i don't mean anything personally - strong words are strong words, but they are just for the sake of discussion, to make a point ...
    There are discussions and there are discussions. Rambling, incoherent, self contradictory, unthinking, mindless, underhanded ad hominem, strawmen littered, immatured, anally rententive, academic, pedantic, vomit of words are not something I want to mired myself in.

    I dont suffer fools at all. I ignore them.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    There are discussions and there are discussions. Rambling, incoherent, self contradictory, unthinking, mindless, underhanded ad hominem, strawmen littered, immatured, anally rententive, academic, pedantic, vomit of words are not something I want to mired myself in.

    I dont suffer fools at all. I ignore them.


    how far thou have fallen.
    Last edited by night86mare; 26th October 2008 at 06:25 AM.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    494

    Default Re: Rereading Karl Marx

    Quote Originally Posted by espion View Post
    There are discussions and there are discussions. Rambling, incoherent, self contradictory, unthinking, mindless, underhanded ad hominem, strawmen littered, immatured, anally rententive, academic, pedantic, vomit of words are not something I want to mired myself in.

    I dont suffer fools at all. I ignore them.

    Confucius said,

    "To learn and to practice what is learned time and again is pleasure, is it not?

    To have friends come from afar* is happiness, is it not?

    To be unperturbed when not appreciated by others is gentlemanly, is it not? "

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •