- Capitalism and Alternatives -

No, Lark is doing fine, leave him alone...

Posted by: Frenchy on December 09, 1999 at 10:54:52:

In Reply to: No, McSpotlight, Lark is right posted by Nikhil Jaikumar on December 08, 1999 at 17:51:22:

: : : : What are the choices besides corporations? You make wild claims about corporations hijacking governments,

: : : Do I? Where was that?

: : : : If the choice is between powerful corporations with the mitigating forces of laws, courts, competition, consumer action and government control, well I'll give you three guess which choic I'll take, and the first two guesses don't count.

: : : I think you may have been adressing someone else Frenchy! At least it didnt seem clear to me whom you were adressing!

: : Maybe the Facist is rounding on the free-marketeers and capitalists now aswell, after all Hitler was capitalist in that he liked monopoly business men to invite round for tea and holocaust chats.

: : --
: : McSpotlight: Lark, please drop it. You've made any point you were trying to many times over.

Hey, I've got no problems with his namecalling, water off of a duck.

: No, Mc Spotlight, let Lark continue to make his point. He's got 1) the right

$$$$$$$$absolutely true.

and 2) the evidence.

Nah, that's typical NJ rhetoric.

After all, we're talking about a guy who

: 1) said that India was better off being under imperial subjugation,j

Well, yeah, before the Brits got there people were starving despite stumbling over perfectly edible cattle. The reason that castes no longer survive, according to NJ, is due to the influence of the Brits. Parlimentary government? Yup, the Brits. Law, you can finish...

: 2) endorsed 'pistol-whipping' a guy who suggested to peasants a philosophy he didn't like (so much for free speech and diversity of opinion)

Ahh, you ere once again, to be charitable. I said that about an 'educated' person taking advantage of the ignorance of peasants to lead them by the nose. That's propaganda, any way you want to slice it. Socialism/Communism isn't just a philosophy that I don't like, it's a philosophy that leads to butchery of innocent people.

: 3) cares so little for the truth that he still has not recognized any of teh numerous examples of socialist / communist democracy and capitalists tyranny that were provided for him,

Sorry old chap, Zimbabwe is a dud.
To me the easiest way to prove what you are saying is to offer the citizens of those success stories you point to an offer to go to any Western country.

: 4) quoted a Nazi approvingly and said that he had some good points.

Not sure here, what quote? What Nazi? Von Braun was a Nazi and he did have some good points.

: Given all that I think that such a guy is eminently worthy of Lark's criticism.

$$$$$$$I second NJ's opinion.

: McSpotlight: Nikhil, this is not a physical place. The very worst you can do to someone is to make them so annoyed they leave or blow their arguments apart in public. To resort to flaming a guy five times in one day on one particular part is akin to trying to win an argument by force.

This is ironic because that is precisely the way, the only way, that the views expressed on this board will ever attain. '

: Do you believe in censorship? We don't. Here at McSpotlight; we exist to fight censorship of any sort. I may personally find Nazism to be a repellent philosophy, but silencing it as it would silence me does not make me any better than it is.

: If you really want to win a debate you do it by proving someone wrong, not drowning them out. No matter how repellant you find their philosophy. Are you saying that you cannot win an argument with a fascist? I don't think so.

I agree. A fascist should be easy to discredit.

: Satyagraha, Nikhil. It's not beating an opponent down by volume; it's beating an opponent by not doing so.

Yeah, remember Ghandi.

PS, appeals to cultural sensitiveity will be immediately round-filed.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup