#Original #GIFS #Funny #Comics #Animals #Creative #Photography #History #Celebs #Tech #Movies #Music


#Ask #News #Science #Interesting #Space #Sports #TVShows #SciFi #Memes #Gaming #Quotes #Sexy
PROTIP:  Press the and keys to navigate the slideshow.
Just like all my other debate posts please be polite.
Report this topic to moderators This post already reported
-3Remove
-2Remove
-1Remove
+10
+1Remove
+2Remove
+3Remove
Views: 6770
Posted: 2010-01-03 16:56:07

Responses (104) // Sorted by points

  • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-03 16:59:04
    +3
    I like capitalism a lot more. It is true that competition fuels greatness right? Also I don't like socialism becuase it can let people recieve things they don't deserve.

    But true capitalism is bad. That is where there is no govt regulation at all. No bueno.
    Reply
    Report
    • randomnator - replied 2010-01-26 06:27:24
      +1
      So children starving in 3rd world countries dont deserve the basic living standards of life? A roof over their head, enough rations for their survival?

      They dont deserve these things? Child slaves in India work their ass off just so you can buy a cheap rug. Just for some firewood. You Dont deserve to be saying that. But at the end of the day, you will just make some irrational excuse up, and push it out of your mind because you feel bad.

      And now for you "BEASTY": Please go get your crappy American education and get off forums that are far beyond your brain capacity.
      Reply
      Report
      • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-26 17:24:00
        +1
        Did I ever say any of that? And what does myself living in a capitalistic or socialistic country have to do with any of that? I think it is horrible that things like you mentioned happen but it has nothing to do with this debate.
        Reply
        Report
        • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-27 19:24:20
          +1
          Well, I would say it has something to do with it. Capitalism: Rich/poor gap, causing increased poverty. Socialism: No Rich/poor gap, causing equality.
          Reply
          Report
          • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-28 01:09:58
            +1
            But it's not impossible to earn a living in America. GRANTED, it is kinda hard right now due to the economic situation but generally almost anyone should get a job. But I must ask, why should a bad employee get the same as someone who works their ass odd.

            I'm addition, India has way more problems than a rich/poor gap. Ex. Child slaves.
            Reply
            Report
      • Zink - replied 2010-01-28 18:17:06
        +1
        commie
        Reply
        Report
        • mienftw - replied 2010-01-28 18:45:06
          +1
          Half the people who say that don't even know what communism is. Another 25% just googled it. Communism basically means there's no poor people, rich people, etc. Everyone gets paid the same no matter what they do. It's a great idea but it's flawed. For example: A man goes to school for 8 years to become a doctor and a man who dropped out of highschool becomes a janitor. They both get paid the same. It just isn't fair, that's the thing.
          Reply
          Report
    • Responses are below viewing threshold (show responses)
      -2
  • triclebickle - replied 2010-01-21 19:01:38
    +3
    im a capitalist because the ones who work hard get what they deserve i've worked my ass off from my freshmen year in high school to right now i make 32 an hour and play with the stock market. dont give up just because the economy sucks just work harder.
    Reply
    Report
    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-23 05:54:13
      +1
      That is the secret. +20 on your comment if could
      Reply
      Report
      • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-23 06:57:44
        +1
        "The ones who work hard get what they deserve."

        Except for those who don't. Those people (not just Americans) who have to work three jobs to feed their families, and can't even with that level of dedication. Those who get screwed over by the greedy suits at the top. Those who, despite a lifetime of dedication to a local store get overrun by a large supermarket, and now have next to no way of earning revenue.

        As the great Immortal Technique puts it [warning, explicit], "But you see, here in America the attitude that is fed to us is that outside of America there live lesser people. "Fuck them, let them fend for themselves." No, Fuck you, they are you. No matter how much you want to dye your hair blonde and put fake eyes in, or follow an anorexic standard of beauty, or no matter how many diamonds you buy from people who exploit your own brutally to get them, no matter what kind of car you drive or what kind of fancy clothes you put on, you will never be them. They're always gonna look at you as nothing but a little monkey. I'd rather be proud of what I am, rather than desperately trying to be something I'm really not, just to fit in. And whether we want to accept it or not, that's what this culture or lack of culture is feeding us."
        Reply
        Report
        • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-23 16:31:46
          +1
          Well yes yes in any system people are going to get screwed over. But why shoud the few people who work at a tiny family-owned supermarket be considered more important than the 50-100 workers at the large supermarket.(I work at one of those "evil" places). Yes it does suck for the owner of the small buisiness but that is part of the only reason people open a bussiness. That is for reward. But whenever there is a chance for reward, there is a chance of failure.
          Reply
          Report
          • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-24 00:57:49
            +1
            I don't believe that we should be okay with people just "getting screwed over." I think a revolution is in order, one that finally recognizes what all of humanity actually is: valuable. Because, currently? Our American mindset destroys far too many lives.
            Reply
            Report
            • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-24 17:10:03
              +1
              But if there is no reason to work hard why do it? Your gonna say people would do it for each other but if that were true there would already be little poor people.
              Reply
              Report
  • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-03 20:45:56
    +2
    First, thanks for making this a separate topic! The other post was quite off-point : ).

    Secondly, socialism! Let the debate ensue.

    I'll post a reasoned argument soon, but for now it's bed time.
    Reply
    Report
    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-05 14:43:51
      +1
      Well I did make this post just for you because I knew you would enjoy it.
      Reply
      Report
      • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-05 20:01:01
        +1
        Haha, and that's why I enjoy your (cybernetic) company so much : P.

        If I could uprate this for you again I would!
        Reply
        Report
  • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-04 01:09:36
    +2
    Ok I just saw something on the news that will help my argument. Zimbabwae now has a $100 trillion dollar bill. No joke. Not too long ago ONE of their dollars was worth more than an American dollar but due to excess govt regulation the value of their dollar tanked.
    Reply
    Report
    • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-04 17:12:37
      +1
      Zimbabwae... Trust me, they have more than one problem.
      Reply
      Report
  • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-04 17:12:05
    +2
    I do not advocate pure socialism, simply close to it. I believe the scale should be tipped much more toward the socialist ideal than the capitalist idea.

    I will list my reasons:

    1.) I support democracy, and when I say that I mean the purest form of a democratic republic possible. The economy is one of the most important aspects of American life, and to have our economic officials go completely unelected, then have them control almost all of our money flow and merchandising traffic, is tyranny in its purest form. Unelected, untouchable officials guiding essential aspects of a nation. This I do not support.

    2.) Neither capitalism nor socialism is a perfect ideal, and both fail for the same reason. Both make an assumption of the human spirit: that they will work for the country. Socialism hopes that everyone will work for a country in which equality reigns, whereas capitalism hopes that everyone will work for the wealth of the top 1% of the nation. I would much rather work for equality.

    3.) The rich/poor gap in a socialist society is much smaller than in a capitalist one. 95-99% of America's wealth is controlled by 1-5% of the population. I personally find that disgusting.

    4.) "Competition fuels greatness...".... really? How about intellect fuels greatness? Human ingenuity? National unity? I think Equality fuels morale.... and Good morale fuels work... and work fuels greatness.
    Reply
    Report
    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-05 01:18:35
      +1
      Ok I understand your problems with the distribution of wealth here but look at it this way. Yes that 5% is unimaginably rich, but the vast majority of that other 95% are not poor by any means at all. A lot of them live in two-story houses, drive SUVs, and have multible TVs. Then the majority of the people left are still not poor. They have a house, a car, probably a tv, and the eat every day. Just becuase there is a huge gap in the wealth distribution doesn't mean that something is wrong. Also just becuase someone can't afford the nicer things in life doesn't make them poor. I would say that around 99% of people in America don't go hungry every day.


      And I still think competition fuels greatness. Just look at sports. Everyone is competing to be the best and that competition motivates them to be the best they can be so that they win.
      Reply
      Report
      • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-05 03:41:47
        +2
        13-17% of Americans are below the poverty line at any given time.

        58.5% of Americans will spend at least one year below the poverty line between the ages of 25 and 75.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
        (I realize it's wikipedia, but their cited sources are legitimate in this case).

        More than one in 7 househoulds, or 14.6% of them, suffered from "food insecurity" in 2008. This means they were in danger of going hungry, and most did.
        http://www.bread.org/press-room/releases/more-americans-go-hungry.html

        Your view of America is quite skewed because you, much like me, must live in a fairly wealthy, safe region. Before you make generalized assumptions that the rest of America is in your situation, look at the facts...

        3.5 million people go homeless according to an annual survey.
        http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html

        It's not just about America either. If you want to be chilled to the bone, read this:
        http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

        Finally, even in sports that analogy falls through. Because you must also apply it to a global scale. If a team (country) does not cooperate: all share in the rewards, all work together to the same goal, all get treated equally; then they will fail miserably. Cooperation fuels greatness.
        Reply
        Report
        • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-05 14:42:44
          +1
          But what defines poverty? And in danger of going hungry, how long were they going hungry.

          Also of those unde the poverty line, how many are there and it's their own fualt? (dropping out, drug use, jail time, unwanted pregnency, ecetora.

          But in addition a team does have cuts and doesn't let the weak people in.(now before you bite my head off I am not including disabled people in this.)
          Reply
          Report
          • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-05 20:08:53
            +1
            It depends on family size what the poverty line is. 1 person= around 10,000. 5= around 25,000. Details here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml .
            As to how long they were hungry, it essentially deals with cases where the amount of hunger was long/severe enough to affect a person's health. To my understanding anyway: I'll find a comparable chart soon. Too lazy at the moment... as that is quite the elusive statistic.

            Situations are far too nuanced to make a generalized statistic involving who is at fault for individuals' poverty. And I don't think it is right for us (in most cases) to assume we understand who is to blame...
            Those who drop out of school? What if it's to take care of a dying mother?
            Those using drugs? What was the cause? Abuse, death, emotional strain?
            Those in jail? Wrongful accusation?
            Unwanted pregnancies? Condom failure? Sacrificing their own livelihood for their new child's?
            I think every situation has a spin.

            That's true, but neither model (Socialism or capitalism) ejects people from the country. And besides, a capitalist state does not differentiate between incompetence and disability: if a person is not turning a profit, they are not worth supporting.
            Reply
            Report
            • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-06 01:04:38
              +1
              by with the drug use and pregnency, it's still their fualt. If someone has a child it's the parents responsability to take care of it and why should I be burdened by thier mistake? If you want to totally eliminate the possibility of a child, don't have sex.

              Also I never meant to eject people. By if one can't support themselve becuase they are to lazy or too crappy as an induvidial why should we hurt the people who do work hard? Now I do have one question, did you mean your statement, "if a person is not turning profit, they are not worth supporting.". If you did we may be geting somewhere. :)
              Reply
              Report
              • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-06 01:07:30
                +1
                Also, I don't support a true capitalism. Sorry of I didn't clarify that before. A true capitalsim is to easy to screw over the consumer. But with some govt regulation, it is as close to perfect as we can get.
                Reply
                Report
                • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-06 04:35:10
                  +1
                  Then what do we do with that parent and child? Let them starve and die? I'd rather support them until they are able to contribute.

                  How does socialism hurt those who work hard? All it does is create equality. And just as you are not supporting true capitalism, I am not supporting true socialism, meaning there is some kind of luxury to be gained. And no, that statement was a rhetorical device criticizing the base capitalist ideal. I think every person is worth supporting, as every man is created equal.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-06 14:48:19
                    +1
                    If you haven't noticed I am very big into a person's own responsibility. If the adult cant take care of themselves maybe they should starve. But take the child away. A child doesn't deserve to suffer like that. And yes, all men are CREATED equal but they can lower their own personal worth.
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-07 16:36:55
                      +1
                      I disagree. Every human life is still worth... well... life to me. And that's the difference. I don't care how badly someone does, I still want them alive.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-19 19:01:51
                      +1
                      But not babies?


                      Sorry....that's for another post.
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-19 20:56:14
                      +1
                      Fair. Except I disagree with you on when a baby is considered a human being.

                      There is a difference between a zygote and a human.
                      Reply
                      Report
  • mienftw - replied 2010-01-21 18:28:05
    +2
    I don't care. All I know is, Fascism FTL.
    Reply
    Report
  • ninjapoptart - replied 2010-01-03 20:31:22
    +1
    Yeah, I'll go with capitalism being the better (american pride, lol) because, like Jofus said, it leads to advancement. If something isn't good enough, it shuts down and is replaced by something better, which is always good. Of course, capitalism can lead to unbalanced wealth distribution. Nothing's perfect.
    Reply
    Report
    • CallMeGoogle - replied 2010-01-03 23:09:20
      +4
      "...competition fuels greatness ..." Nothing else needs to be said.
      Reply
      Report
  • pappasmurff - replied 2010-01-06 04:57:04
    +1
    capitalism is the most fair between the two. its because if u work your ass off you get rewarded more.
    When russia tried communism which is alot like socialismin the financial department, it completely failed. thats because whe government is created you have to think how the common man could abuse it. With socialism all you have to do is sit on your fat ass and you get paid just the same.
    Reply
    Report
    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-06 14:50:10
      +1
      I mostly agree with you but their are some big differences between communism and socialism. But they are similar in some ways.
      Reply
      Report
      • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-07 16:39:17
        +1
        Thanks Jofus... Communism and Socialism are completely different. And theoretically that could happen, however, who would choose to not work for their loved ones?
        Reply
        Report
        • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-08 02:12:03
          +1
          But I must say he was also right. In communism the social class structure is taken away. It makes sure no one is too rich. Also the govt has a heavy hand on bussinesses.
          Reply
          Report
          • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-08 22:00:42
            +1
            Sure. However, Communism fails because it's a takeover/hijacking of an entire governmental peoples, not a simple economic revamping. It is run through dictatorship, whereas I support a Socialized Democratic Republic, run by the people, the people who are equal : ).
            Reply
            Report
            • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-12 01:06:25
              +1
              Well of course they are different but they to have glaring similarities.
              Reply
              Report
              • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-12 21:07:19
                +1
                Only in the economic scheme of things. Everything else? Starkly oppositional. At least my preferred brand of socialism.
                Reply
                Report
                • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-13 01:28:38
                  +1
                  Well I would hope so. I going to be honest and you are probably the same way. I think I am a pretty open-minded person but I will never shift my views to match yours. Between us it just comes down to our morals and ideology. I just believe in personal responsability and getting what you deserve.
                  Reply
                  Report
                  • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-13 05:29:52
                    +1
                    Rawr. I honestly hate that viewpoint... of never changing your views? I am 100% willing to alter my views, I just require a hard-nosed factual basis to do so. If someone can lay out empirically/philosophically a case that is better than my own, I will change my view right then and there. So far, on this subject, that has happened once. From my support of fairly extreme capitalism (Ayn Rand-esque) to where I am now. But truly, never changing your views? That is not open-minded...

                    I'm not saying you aren't open minded, you seem to be, I just wish you would revise your above statement : ).
                    Reply
                    Report
                    • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-18 04:32:08
                      +1
                      Fair. : ).
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-28 14:21:10
                      +1
                      I agree. Very fair. :p
                      Reply
                      Report
                    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-16 14:21:25
                      0
                      Sorry. I didn't really mean that. I am open minded to other opinions, but only to a certain extent. I was just trying to say that yourself and I are just too different to agree 100% on an issue we are so divided on.
                      Reply
                      Report
  • Ertrov - replied 2010-01-06 14:59:11
    +1
    Must... resist... getting wrapped in another debate... not resisting well....
    Reply
    Report
    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-06 15:10:15
      +1
      dont worry if feels good
      Reply
      Report
      • Ertrov - replied 2010-01-07 13:12:56
        +1
        Must not give in....
        Reply
        Report
        • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-07 13:48:50
          +1
          Let it all out!!!!!
          Reply
          Report
    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-16 14:24:07
      +1
      That just gave me an idea. Maybe I could change my profile name to "wrappedinanotherdebate" almost like my absolute favorite sharenator wrappedinbacon. I think that would be appropriate for me because I'm always debating on sharenator.
      Reply
      Report
  • EdBragg - replied 2010-01-13 05:39:56
    +1
    Socialism is the morally superior, but relies on the assumption that human beings are able to act with moral integrity. Often in a Socialist system, the hyper-rich abuse the system, making themselves far more rich than the plebiscites, who are forced to work for a corrupt Governmental system in order to feed those richer and less deserving than them.
    Reply
    Report
  • Dannyl - replied 2010-01-13 07:06:20
    +1
    Everybody should be treated equally.

    a lecturer begins a seminar holding up a 20 dollar bill, and asking:

    - Who wants this 20 dollar bill?

    Several hands went up, but the lecturer said:

    - Before handing it over, there’s something I must do.

    He furiously crushed it, and asked again:

    - Who still wants this bill?

    The hands continued raised.

    - And what if I do this?

    He threw it against the wall, letting it fall to the floor, kicked it, stamped in it and again held up the bill – all dirty and crumpled. He repeated the question, and the hands continued to be held high.

    - You mustn’t ever forget this scene – said the lecturer. – No matter what I do with this money, it’ll still be a 20 dollar bill. Many times in our lives, we are crushed, stamped on, kicked, maltreated, offended; however, in spite of this, we are still worth the same.
    Reply
    Report
    • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-16 14:28:18
      +1
      That is a great point. But are you saying a child rapist who has raped and killed 3 little girls is still worth the same as you and me? I consider myself a person with decent moral fiber and from what I can see you are too. I just don't believe that no matter what a person does that we all are equal.
      Reply
      Report
      • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-18 04:29:58
        +1
        I don't believe that we are all "equal" in the sense that we have the same worth as a human being, but "equal" in the sense that we are all still human beings, and ultimately have the right to life.
        Reply
        Report
        • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-18 05:15:00
          +1
          I understand your point. I just believe that if someone is to much of a scumbag to take care of themselves that the good responsable people in this country shouldn't be burdened by them.
          Reply
          Report
  • MajorpaiN98 - replied 2010-01-20 19:56:33
    +1
    umm i agree more with a capitalism approach than a socialism but i think we do have socialist aspects in our society and all those people going homeless and/or going is because they fucked up their own lives everyone has a choice and everyone can get above poverty if they can earn their way up plus some of these figures your getting logos i dont think are accurate plus 1. News will exagerate to get good ratings and make people also think its more of a problem than it really is i.e. Global warming 2. Why arent u also pointing out the good points if your so in love with equality state each point equally
    Reply
    Report
  • MajorpaiN98 - replied 2010-01-20 19:59:53
    +1
    PLus wats the point to trying or working harder if you just gonna earn the same this so whats the point of even trying. all countries are run by the rich and that will never change NEVER no matter what u say about equal class someone will always be above another. In capitalism everyone starts somewhere at the bottom unless in the very few lucky cases but whether you move up that chain is up to the choices you make and how hard you work and your determination and btw we are not a democracy we are a republic there is a difference
    Reply
    Report
    • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-20 20:07:20
      +1
      We are a democratic republic. But that's beside the point.

      Are you saying because equality is hard we shouldn't try for it? Freedom is hard too.

      And which figures do you question? I will provide sources for any. And global climate change is EXTREMELY serious. But that's for another discussion.

      What points am I not stating equally? I'm very confused.
      Reply
      Report
  • JoshFFuller - replied 2010-01-17 18:54:59
    0
    I think both sides have made a very valid argument, and I hate to be indecisive, but I think it depends on the country, the USA is better as a Capitalism, and Canada is better as a Socialist country. It has to do with more than what people want, other factors such as history, politics, resources and current economy define a country as socialist and capitalist, and there isn't a line that separates the two, a capitalist country can have some socialist laws and vice versa
    Reply
    Report
    • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-18 04:31:38
      +1
      Very accurate, reasoned comment. However, taking into account such factors as recession, general economic health over the years, state of the impoverished, etc etc, I don't think we can say the US is "better" at capitalism.... We haven't given anything else a try.
      Reply
      Report
      • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-18 05:12:29
        +1
        But rescessions are natural. Granted this one that we are in now is pretty extreme, I think if we give it time we will be fine. We've beat worse things before.
        Reply
        Report
        • Logos385 - replied 2010-01-18 05:15:11
          +1
          That very mindset is what I am challenging. They are natural for our current system, but with radical change comes a radical change in results.
          Reply
          Report
          • Jofus1992 - replied 2010-01-18 05:21:31
            +1
            Ok. Even if socialism doesn't have rescessions which they do.....back to an earlier point of mine. I said competition fuels greatness. Here is my question for you:

            What great inventions have come out of a socialistic or communistic country?
            Reply
            Report
  • Responses are below viewing threshold (show responses)
    -2
  • Responses are below viewing threshold (show responses)
    -3

Leave a reply

Upload files