Venezuela jails 100 bourgeois capitalist parasites in crackdown on price-gouging - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;42886145]Oh man Dain is back, and with a vengeance.[/QUOTE] facepunch episode 3: revenge of the absolutist [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] soon balance will be returned to the forum

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42886123]crime statistics don't imply virtue. a virtuous person can be a criminal when persecuted or oppressed, whether economically or politically or socially.[/QUOTE] so [URL="http://southafricanews.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/boer-womens-cruel-torture-murders-described-in-court/"]cutting someone up so much that there are pieces of fat the size of a fist lying around, but they are still alive and screaming in pain[/URL], is a virtuous reaction to ~oppression~? the literally thousands of boer farmers killed by blacks is justifiable because muh oppression?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42886157]facepunch episode 3: revenge of the absolutist [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] soon balance will be returned to the forum[/QUOTE] yawmwen vs dain to the thunderdome

[QUOTE=NoDachi;42886326]yawmwen vs dain to the thunderdome[/QUOTE]Make sure to make some popcorn. Its gonna be a long night :v:

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;42884131]Are you implying that socialists give a fuck about moral and ethics? When people will understand for fucks sake that for a socialist, nothing is more important than taking down the capitalist system. Moral and ethic for them are a construct made by the upper classes just to stay in power.[/QUOTE] literally speechless

[QUOTE=catchall;42886293]so [URL="http://southafricanews.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/boer-womens-cruel-torture-murders-described-in-court/"]cutting someone up so much that there are pieces of fat the size of a fist lying around, but they are still alive and screaming in pain[/URL], is a virtuous reaction to ~oppression~? the literally thousands of boer farmers killed by blacks is justifiable because muh oppression?[/QUOTE] i said nothing about justice, justifiability, or that the actions were virtuous. i'm saying people are a product of their environment to a large extent. those who are born into an environment of violence(mostly through oppression from the aristocracy) will tend towards violence. you are advocating an environment that will breed violent tendencies in groups and individuals, it is inevitable that your society will collapse due to revolutionary action.

[QUOTE=catchall;42885659]it is not taken and it may or may not be earned. equality is not a desirable end. there will always be, and there [I]should[/I] always be, those above who command, and those below who obey. and in return, the elites have a certain paternalistic [I]noblesse oblige[/I] toward their lessers. aberrations from this natural order inevitably lead to degeneracy and the decay of social institutions[/QUOTE] id take dains honesty and lucid horror over passive-aggressive illiterate fp'ers any day of the week

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42886372]i said nothing about justice, justifiability, or that the actions were virtuous. i'm saying people are a product of their environment to a large extent. those who are born into an environment of violence(mostly through oppression from the aristocracy) will tend towards violence. you are advocating an environment that will breed violent tendencies in groups and individuals, it is inevitable that your society will collapse due to revolutionary action.[/QUOTE] but that isn't actually true. violent crime by the negro has increased the more freedoms he is granted. if oppression breeds violence as you say, then we ought to have seen his crime rate decline. [t]http://i.imgur.com/F7yZHdx.png[/t] as this has not happened we can consider your hypothesis falsified people are largely not products of their environment. the most we can do by altering the environment is to temper a man's natural proclivities to savagery. for some races, such as the white and the chinaman, this is relatively easy. all he needs is a stable system of rule of law so that he may flourish. as for others, more stringent regulations of conduct are required.

Is Dain from 1923 Honest question [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] I think I saw him on last weeks episode of Boardwalk Empire

[QUOTE=catchall;42886413]but that isn't actually true. violent crime by the negro has increased the more freedoms he is granted. if oppression breeds violence as you say, then we ought to have seen his crime rate decline. [t]http://i.imgur.com/F7yZHdx.png[/t] as this has not happened we can consider your hypothesis falsified people are largely not products of their environment. the most we can do by altering the environment is to temper a man's natural proclivities to savagery. for some races, such as the white and the chinaman, this is relatively easy. all he needs is a stable system of rule of law so that he may flourish. as for others, more stringent regulations of conduct are required.[/QUOTE] that graph actually illustrates a change in oppression, not necessarily a change in behavior. crime rates declined in the 90s although incarceration increased. this shows blacks are being locked up more, not that they have been committing more crime. keep in mind that one of the most common crimes to be incarcerated for is drug possession/drug sale, which have comparable rates between races but blacks are disproportionately incarcerated for it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42886448]that graph actually illustrates a change in oppression, not necessarily a change in behavior. crime rates declined in the 90s although incarceration increased. this shows blacks are being locked up more, not that they have been committing more crime. keep in mind that one of the most common crimes to be incarcerated for is drug possession/drug sale, which have comparable rates between races but blacks are disproportionately incarcerated for it.[/QUOTE] the simpler hypothesis is that blacks simply commit more crime. the data bears this out [quote]he “racist” police officer is practically a cliché. White cops all over the country are supposed to be shooting, beating, and arresting innocent blacks and Hispanics — or at least trying a whole lot harder to collar them than whites. Aside from some isolated incidents of racially motivated brutality, this is a false image. The police arrest blacks and Hispanics because they commit crimes. The first line of evidence is the close correspondence between survey data and arrest data. If the public says half the muggers are black, and half the muggers the police arrest are black, it is unlikely the police are making “biased” arrests. Even more to the point, the police have essentially no discretion over whom they arrest for a violent crime. Except for murder victims, most people get a good enough look at an assailant to know if he is black or white. If the victim says a white man took his wallet, the police can’t very well go out and arrest a black man even if they wanted to. The police have a lot of discretion over whether to make an arrest in the case of non-violent crimes, such as violation of liquor laws. Unlike murder or rape, there is not a great deal of public pressure to make arrests, and the police can walk away from crime if they want to. Presumably, a “racist” officer would see a drunk on the street and make an arrest only if the drunk were black. In fact, drunk driving and other liquor offenses — in which police can make arrests or not largely as they choose — are the very crimes for which the black multiple of the white arrest rate is the smallest (see previous page). If “racist” cops are picking on blacks they are not doing a good job. Finally, if the police are “racist,” why are Asians arrested at consistently lower rates than whites? Wouldn’t “racist” cops think of some way to snare Asians? It is often argued that the large number of blacks arrested for drugs — particularly crack cocaine — is evidence of police bias. However, there is a completely independent indicator of who is using illegal drugs, which suggests that the police are arresting the very people they should. The Department of Health and Human Services keeps statistics on people admitted to emergency rooms because of drug overdoses. Blacks are admitted at 6.67 times the white rate for heroin and morphine, and no less than 10.5 times the white rate for cocaine (Hispanics are admitted at two to three times the white rate). What better evidence could there be that people of different races are using drugs at markedly different rates, and that the police are simply doing their job? Like so many other destructive racial myths, the myth of the racist cop refuses to die.[/quote] [url]http://www.amren.com/ar/1999/07/[/url] [url]http://unamusementpark.com/2011/04/the-first-law-of-race-and-crime/[/url] [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaysBefore;42886427]Is Dain from 1923 Honest question [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] I think I saw him on last weeks episode of Boardwalk Empire[/QUOTE] 1923 is too liberal

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];42877085']I'm a libertarian from a state perspective. I have no problem with using force and coercion in the interest of the working class, [I]so long[/I] as it isn't against the working class. Against fascists? Sure. Against capitalists? Sure. I don't claim to be liberal. Further, I don't believe that shooting or jailing capitalists would be the best method, I would prefer to see the class liquidated and capitalists integrated into the working class rather than have them individually eliminated. That being said, I don't much care if they were removed with force and violence. I think that Makhno was justified when he violently opposed the kulaks*. I believe that Che was justified when he oversaw the trials of capitalists in La Cabana*. I don't think that Lenin was justified when he issued the hanging order. Violence to take out [I]active opposition by individuals[/I] against the working class is acceptable. Violence against a class, simply because it is part of that class, is not. It's somewhat a self-defense thing. You can shoot the man breaking into your house because he's an immediate threat to your wellbeing (you being the working class or the revolution), but it's not ok for you to go out and murder all the people in the mob because of that, even if you're getting rid of the mob.[/QUOTE] This kind of thinking is what enables dictators. When you drive business and investment out of a country, the only people left poor are the working class. And now that your leader has no heavy hitters in the business world to answer to, who keeps them in check? So first, you start off with the imprisonment of a hundred capitalists, and in some cases it could be argued rightly so. But then your country starts to fail on an economic level internationally as you realise that many of your goods and services are imported, but nobody wants to touch you lest they get imprisoned or executed. Suddenly, the need for those goods and services becomes too great and to ease the cost of the minority of suppliers that will sell to you (at extortionate rates), you employ some restrictions on the working class. Obviously, this causes unrest and subsequently, riots break out. You attempt to quell the tension, but the deteriorating quality of life of the poorest only breeds more violence. Then the crackdown begins. You justify the execution and imprisonment of several 'rebel leaders' by saying that they were dangerous to your great plan of making a fair society without the need for capitalism. But, again, more disgruntled masses of people are flooding into the streets. Civil war breaks out and the aim of the population has now changed. They no longer want you to change your policies, they want you to leave. Then you end up with a situation that many countries have been in before, war, the downfall of leaders, the confusion of what to do next. You need to understand that this business of blood for blood, the reactionary measure of an angry man is enough to lead a country to revolution, but what to do next is always left uncertain. Yes, it sucks that this price gouging occurred, making supplies and services unavailable to those who needed it most, and there should indeed be legislation to prevent future profiteering of this kind. But to mandate violence against a whole group of people, uncertain of the magnitude of their involvement is wrong, and leads, inherently, to the detriment of the very people you attempt to represent.

[QUOTE=catchall;42886551]the simpler hypothesis is that blacks simply commit more crime. the data bears this out [url]http://www.amren.com/ar/1999/07/[/url] [url]http://unamusementpark.com/2011/04/the-first-law-of-race-and-crime/[/url] [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] 1923 is too liberal[/QUOTE] so do the arrest rates for blacks and whites line up regarding murder, drug possession, and robbery? you made an assertion that tries to use logic in place of statistics when statistics are easily obtained and analyzed.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42886695]so do the arrest rates for blacks and whites line up regarding murder, drug possession, and robbery? you made an assertion that tries to use logic in place of statistics when statistics are easily obtained and analyzed.[/QUOTE] no, blacks commit murder, drug and robbery offenses nearly an order of magnitude more than whites [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] per capita

Wow, Dain's even nuttier than he was before he was banned. Kind of like a psychopath who no longer has reason to keep on the his mask of humanity. Actually, literally a psychopath who no longer has reason to keep on the his mask of humanity.

[QUOTE=catchall;42886724]no, blacks commit murder, drug and robbery offenses nearly an order of magnitude more than whites [editline]16th November 2013[/editline] per capita[/QUOTE] how do arrest rates match up to this?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42886887]how do arrest rates match up to this?[/QUOTE] i'm glad you asked [img]http://i.imgur.com/MsDgchN.png[/img]

[QUOTE=catchall;42886955]i'm glad you asked [img]http://i.imgur.com/MsDgchN.png[/img][/QUOTE] source?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42886992]source?[/QUOTE] either blumstein 1993 or the doj's '05 report on the color of crime speaking of which: [url]http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf[/url] [t]http://i.imgur.com/2LDMDro.png[/t] [editline]17th November 2013[/editline] [t]http://i.imgur.com/ST1WZke.png[/t] so there really isn't an arrest bias the only conclusion i can draw is innate criminality of blacks

Hold on, why are you's arguing about white vs. black arrest rates? How does that link back to the debate on capitalism, socialism etc. It's a completely independent event and can happen under whatever economic system.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42887090]Hold on, why are you's arguing about white vs. black arrest rates? How does that link back to the debate on capitalism, socialism etc. It's a completely independent event and can happen under whatever economic system.[/QUOTE] It's DainBramage dude, if he can make a conversation disgustingly racist, he will.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42887090]Hold on, why are you's arguing about white vs. black arrest rates? How does that link back to the debate on capitalism, socialism etc. It's a completely independent event and can happen under whatever economic system.[/QUOTE] because communism is an ideology of egalitarianism and in order for people to be egalitarian you have to admit that they actually are equal.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42887196]because communism is an ideology of egalitarianism and in order for people to be egalitarian you have to admit that they actually are equal.[/QUOTE] But that doesn't mean that capitalism inherently disadvantages minorities. In its rawest form it only disadvantages people who don't put effort in. Correlation may not be causation; just because discrimination against certain demographics has happened in nations that identify as capitalist does not mean it's inherited from capitalism. And as history has shown, discrimination against certain groups has occurred in nations that are on the left of the spectrum, such as with the whole Soviet gulag system and persecution of individuals, for example, for their religious beliefs.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42887265]But that doesn't mean that capitalism inherently disadvantages minorities. In its rawest form it only disadvantages people who don't put effort in.[/QUOTE] uh capitalism has nothing to do with effort. 0 to 100 effort makes no difference in "advantages". capitalism is entirely unconcerned with that, which is the principle criticism socialists make of it.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42887265]But that doesn't mean that capitalism inherently disadvantages minorities. In its rawest form it only disadvantages people who don't put effort in. Correlation may not be causation; just because discrimination against certain demographics has happened in nations that identify as capitalist does not mean it's inherited from capitalism. And as history has shown, discrimination against certain groups has occurred in nations that are on the left of the spectrum, such as with the whole Soviet gulag system and persecution of individuals, for example, for their religious beliefs.[/QUOTE] well i would say that while capitalism doesn't [i]require[/i] minorities to be oppressed, it creates a mindset that can help allow that behavior. capitalism justifies class systems and large inequalities in the economy. when you accept that inequality is natural or desired, it becomes easier to force inequality on minority groups you perceive as inferior. also while capitalism doesn't necessarily require minorities to be oppressed, it profits off oppressive attitudes(amos and andy, cosmo magazine, most of the porn industry, etc.) and helps perpetuate these attitudes. so yea capitalism is an ideology of economic inequality so it's hard to be surprised when that inequality spills over into social or political areas.

[QUOTE=thisispain;42887309]uh capitalism has nothing to do with effort. 0 to 100 effort makes no difference in "advantages". capitalism is entirely unconcerned with that, which is the principle criticism socialists make of it.[/QUOTE] Please elaborate.

btw while i argue mostly against capitalism in my posts it is simply my own personal experiences living under capitalism in the united states that guides my passion. i hate the state too, and can levy many of the same criticisms(actually most) against the state that i would against capitalism, but capitalism is a larger and more oppressive force in my life so i tend to focus more on it. sorta like how a feminist will concentrate more heavily on gender issues, or a antira might concentrate on racial issues. we all have our personal passions and focuses.

the fuck does any of this have to do with venezuela and how fucking inept it's government is.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;42887318]Please elaborate.[/QUOTE] capitalism only cares about the amount of money you can get. it only cares about profits. someone like a miner who puts in a lot of effort is paid a lot less than a ceo who could be argued to put in relatively less effort. pay and economic power are not determined by effort put in, it is determined by luck and the amount of money extracted.

What is your personal experience with capitalism and how has it disadvantaged you personally? Not saying that capitalism is infallible (it isn't), but I'm just wondering out of curiosity and for perspective.