The Communist Guild

[Stranger]

sorry k but I can't be bothered.

[Xaenn]

Originally posted by karragh
we can proove it as fact through the study of children of generations of idiotic people, naturally, there genes would determine that they to would be stupid, but fortunatly intelligence isn't passed on through genes. I had a friend who was the first person in there entire families history to pass grade 10, and they went on to become a university professor, so go on, tell me genes pass on intelligence

First and foremost, I don't believe that intelligence is passed through genes....

But....

YOU CAN'T PROVE IT!!

Are you a scientist btw?

[Schutzstaffel]

Yes.

[Xaenn]

That was constructive...

[karragh]

xaenn there is enough evidence to the contrary to prove it, and I'm sure if I was a bioligist I could explain to you how nucleic acids worK in order to provide proof, but unfortunatly I did physics

Originally posted by Stranger
sorry k but I can't be bothered.

heh, that's your entire reply? so I win.

and another thing, you don't need to be smart to do stuff, you can be a neuroligist and still be a complete idiot, and I have a specific example if you need it.






sorry for the late reply, forgot about this old arguement.

[Xaenn]

Ok, so you're a physicist. I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

Regardless of that, I'd like to say even if you had your biological explanation of nucleic acids it still wouldn't prove it as a fact.

You could convince beyond reasonable doubt that genes don't pass intelligence, but I'd say that is impossible to prove it as fact.

Nothing in science is fact...it seems only fair to admit that.
Given that through processes we can have accurate descriptions of our world and processes, but we don't prove it to be fact.

my 2 cents. However this is a totally different debate that could become long under the right circumstances.

[karragh]

Originally posted by Xaenn


Regardless of that, I'd like to say even if you had your biological explanation of nucleic acids it still wouldn't prove it as a fact.

You could convince beyond reasonable doubt that genes don't pass intelligence, but I'd say that is impossible to prove it as fact.

Nothing in science is fact...it seems only fair to admit that.
Given that through processes we can have accurate descriptions of our world and processes, but we don't prove it to be fact.

my 2 cents. However this is a totally different debate that could become long under the right circumstances.

whatever, if nothing is a fact, then why bother to point out it isn't a fact, isn't that just stating the obvious?
anyhow, yah, that isn't exactly the discussion on hand.... wern't we talking about communism or something? ah whatever.....



oh, and don't get the wrong impression, I'm not actually a physicist, but I took advanced physics in university, so I know a fair bit about it.

[smkstcklghtng]

without digging through this whole thread, did this discussion ever get back to anarchism?

i think communism is like a beta release of anarchism.
the idea is good, but the implementation gets screwed up somewhere in development.

anarchism then is something of an evolution of communism.

capitalism seeks to zone the property, tax it, sell it, lease it, use it as equity in a loan (could someone explain wtf equity amounts to anyway?), build a farm on it, knock the farm down, build a mall on it, etc.; whereas communism seeks to distrubute the property among the populous; whereas anarchism seeks to abolish it

Property is theft.
Theft is possession.
Possession is property.

[smkstcklghtng]

i believe mr. crowley stated:

That all rational conceptions imply that we know Truth, and that Truth is in their propositions, only shows that these so-called rational ideas are not really rational at all.

the way i interpret that:
that no rational discussion can be had about truth/fact because YOU are truth. and so are you.. and you.. and you... ad nauseum.

so, let's talk about anarchism. sorry, this post should have preceded my previous post, but it is 4 in the morning.

[Urn]

anarchism now is more impossible than communism.
i belive, that communism will win in future (id say about 100 years)
and who knows? maybe, anarchism is a true freedom.

[smkstcklghtng]

oh yeah i totally agree. anarchism is a good argument, but requires a level of unity humanity is not currently capable of. all i'm saying is that communism is a step towards this unity and capitalism is a step back.

in a country founded on the ideals of freedom (america), why can i still be arrested for public nudity? because not everyone wants to see my naked ass? well they should have to for the sake of freedom!

Support our poops. buy huggies.

[hitman]

I want in dudes.

[Xaenn]

Well this sucker hasn't gotten bumped for a long time.

[Dingy]

doesn't look like it
I saw this on tv today...
Kerry: The 'W' in George W. Bush stands for 'wrong'. The wrong choices, wrong policies, wrong man!
Bush: The 'W' in my name doesn't stand for 'wrong' but 'write'.

[Xaenn]

Holy shit...lol