Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, this is a pisstake.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    DemonDemonic is, in fact (sadly) deadly serious
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I refuse to believe that, I'm sorry but I hope you're wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i'm sorry Mindcrime i really don't understand how you came up with your assertion that money is an abract concept.
    Money is a human invention, as was all types of wealth.
    eliminate wealth? that's a good thing!
    unfortunately you mean welath as in the superficial kind, the best wealth one can have is happiness.
    it's simple: eliminate money and you eliminate financial inequality.
    money is not a concept, that is nonsense, i can hold money in my hand, there is no such thing as a tangible concept.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by creak)
    I refuse to believe that, I'm sorry but I hope you're wrong.
    I'm right, go check his other posts in other forums. Unless his whole persona is a facade, this is real.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Appag, why not quote a dead man?
    the quote is an idea, and ideas do not outdate themselves.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phillip)
    i'm sorry Mindcrime i really don't understand how you came up with your assertion that money is an abract concept.
    Money is a human invention, as was all types of wealth.
    eliminate wealth? that's a good thing!
    unfortunately you mean welath as in the superficial kind, the best wealth one can have is happiness.
    it's simple: eliminate money and you eliminate financial inequality.
    money is not a concept, that is nonsense, i can hold money in my hand, there is no such thing as a tangible concept.
    Money IS a concept - it's the idea that metal counters are somehow worth a good meal. The things you hold in your hand are metal discs, your mind is what makes it money.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phillip)
    Appag, why not quote a dead man?
    the quote is an idea, and ideas do not outdate themselves.
    Woo, let's return to feudalism then? Serfdom is awesome.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    I'm right, go check his other posts in other forums. Unless his whole persona is a facade, this is real.
    Christ. The revolution's going to be a long time coming, it would then appear.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    no, money is not a concept.
    the metal discs have always been recognised as money, and "money" is simply a word used to describe it.
    they have always been used to trade etc.

    and you have still not given a reason as to why using past quotes is bad.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phillip)
    no, money is not a concept.
    the metal discs have always been recognised as money, and "money" is simply a word used to describe it.
    they have always been used to trade etc.

    and you have still not given a reason as to why using past quotes is bad.
    Look up Croesus please.
    We have not always had money, learn some history. For a long time we had barter. There was no currency.

    Using past quotes is "bad" because it means you're not really thinking for yourself. I want to argue with you, not the echoes of Marx, Lenin and Engels.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    but, if they are the founders of my ideologies, then why shouldn't i and others use quotes?
    you are using capitalist ideas yourself are you not?
    or are you advocating an entirely different system from past thinkers?
    i think not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Because you present them as gospel, as though their views are fact, rather than their own opinions.
    I'm using capitalist ideas, but I'm not quoting Friedman and Smith to do so. Think and talk for yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Because you present them as gospel, as though their views are fact, rather than their own opinions.
    I'm using capitalist ideas, but I'm not quoting Friedman and Smith to do so. Think and talk for yourself.
    Such a broad statement, how can you support that? The gospel is itself contradictory I fail to see what your underlying setntiment was when you said “you present them as gospel” I thought appossels were the only ones that could do that. Furthermore even if he has presented them as gospel, you as a conscientious objecter should debate the validity of his comments. Don’t feel propelled to use subordinate ad hominem, unless you believe iyou’re trying to defend the undefendable .
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It's a figure of speech, don't be trite. A conscientious objecter is a term most used when referring to those who chose not to fight in a war on moral grounds, I fail to see its relevance here?

    Since you seem to be having problems with understanding this, I'll go slow. Just because Marx said something, it doesn't make that statement true. So to present a quote from Marx as a point in an argument is futile because it carries no weight. KK?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    It's a figure of speech, don't be trite. A conscientious objecter is a term most used when referring to those who chose not to fight in a war on moral grounds, I fail to see its relevance here? Since you seem to be having problems with understanding this, I'll go slow. Just because Marx said something, it doesn't make that statement true. So to present a quote from Marx as a point in an argument is futile because it carries no weight. KK?
    Oh so you’re entitled to use figures of speech, but socialists or Marxists aren’t allowed to quote Karl Marx in an argument where they are being chalanged on capricious sentiment regarding themselves. You then use words like trite. Amazing.

    I am quite aware of the instances where the term is often used. However in your tirade you suggest that the term conscientious objector can be used in other places other than the norm. This is evident when you say “most used” I of course used the phrase in its literal capacity and not its common one.
    (Original post by Apagg)
    A conscientious objecter is a term most used when referring
    Conscientious meaning guided by or in accordance with the dictates of conscience. Objector, well I would have thought that was self explanatory maybe not. You are quite aware of this otherwise you wouldn’t of used the variable “most used”. You have purposely left a gap as to render it impossible to call you incorrect. You are not as clever as your posts suggest and even less clever than you yourself believe. Using the words conscientious objector juxtaposed is perfectly valid.

    (Original post by Morgan141)
    Individuality, repulsive? Well in that case why are you expressing your individual feelings on marxism? Why don't you just believe what the current majority in the UK believe?
    Why don't I follow the leader? I think you may have answered your own question.
    "Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand."

    By quoting Karl Marx I have affirmed that I am in agreement with that particular utterance. "Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." I thus never express myself as an individual with subscription to the interpretation of the word individual Morgan 141 has.

    What ever possessed you to think that you were capable of being entertaining or interesting to read? If ignorance was a disability you’d get a full pension, you are merely attempting to disrupt this thread. Its’ rather pathetic and you should stop.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    So you're not going to address the gaping holes in your argument I addressed on the other page?
    Figures of speech are perfectly valid, substituting other people's views for your own is not.
    By the way, I find it amusing that you accuse me of an ad hominem attack when your own posts are littered with them.

    You can not simply quote Marx and then not explain it, as you did in your original post. It makes it seem as though you are leaning on Marx for defence, saying "This guy said it, you can't argue now". Your addendum to the original post makes it acceptable.

    You still haven't explained why I am a conscientious objector.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    can i just point out that i haven't actually quoted anyone Apagg.
    hence i am thinking and talking for myself thank you very much
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apagg)
    So you're not going to address the gaping holes in your argument I addressed on the other page?
    Figures of speech are perfectly valid, substituting other people's views for your own is not.
    By the way, I find it amusing that you accuse me of an ad hominem attack when your own posts are littered with them.

    You can not simply quote Marx and then not explain it, as you did in your original post. It makes it seem as though you are leaning on Marx for defence, saying "This guy said it, you can't argue now". Your addendum to the original post makes it acceptable.

    You still haven't explained why I am a conscientious objector.
    Read the above post meticulously. I made such an attack in my finial paragraph as you annoyed me they are by no means the back bone of the argument yours how ever seemed to have that purpose.

    The person I qoted Marx to has obviously understood it because they have not posted a second time asking me to explain it. I have answered Morgan141 question otherwise she or he would have replied and asked me to explain myself further. I am of course happy to do this for Morgan 141 but why do you want me to do it for you when the post wasn’t addressed to you?

    You’re attepting to hijack somebody else’s argument with a flawed initiative. You can not tell me I can’t quote Marx and not explain it when I didn’t quote it to you in the first place. I quoted it to Morgan141 who understood the quote. If you would like me to explain it because you are ignorant of its meaning then you are going the wrong way about it.

    “You as a conscientious objecter should debate the validity of his comments.”

    The above is the sentence where I used that phrase. In context to the prior post calling you a conshientious objector would be stating that you object to Marxist prinipals because it doesn’t lie in accordance with your own conscience or morality. That was highlighted in the previous, you seemed to have over looked it.

    If you would like me to explain that famous quote for your own benefit and not for somebody else’s who at this point I assume understood it, do it in a private capacity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phillip)
    can i just point out that i haven't actually quoted anyone Apagg.
    hence i am thinking and talking for myself thank you very much
    Which was why I made the point against DemonDemonic. If you recall you started arguing with me, so don't get all huffy.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.