Maverick_Chaos1's forum posts

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts

[QUOTE="Marl_Ripen"]I like a burger as much as the next guy, but why should I get stuck with paying the bills for individuals lacking self control? They either should be sent to weight loss camps or be excluded from the universal health care program.Derek1177
you are a total Comunist arent you???

How does that make him a Communist? It's rather capitalistic to be concerned about self-interest, taxation and the efficiency of health care.

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts

[QUOTE="Skull007o_O"]thats up to the people, if we can't control by ourselves....Crypto138
There's not a choice in the matter. Human nature intrinsically will not allow something like anarchy to work, unless you somehow got rid of every single person who ever did anything bad, and had nothing left but saints, but 1) that'd be impossible, and 2) you'd be wiping out almost the entire planet. The fact is, if you let people do whatever they want, they're gonna do whatever they want. They aren't gonna stay calm, controlled, and collected.

Spare us the platitudes, please. I really dislike it when people make claims about 'human nature' with a complete lack of evidence to back up their assertions, or any concrete knowledge on the subject. I presume that you believe in human nature as a state of greed and self-interest, and this (if we assume these connotations to be true) is precisely the reason why certain strands of anarchism work. The arguments for statism are weak at best, not to mention completely unjust. You must be deluded if you think that self-organisation is impossible, or that society needs the coercion of the state to stop us from eating each other.

I suggest that you read about the differents kinds of anarchism, ranging from market-anarchism to anarcho-communism before you make such all-encompassing, unsubstantiated generalisations about whether 'anarchism' can work or not because the two wings of anarchism pertain to totally different methods of government and organisation. Once you've done this, I think that you should consider historical examples, such as the Paris commune, CNT/POUM Barcelona, or even tribal societies (for anarcho-communes), and the application of laissez-faire capitalism within various countries (for market-anarchism) before you spread more of these misguided, banal diatribes on the internet. Read up on such theorists as Mikhail Bakunin in regards to the former, and economists such as Milton Friedman in regards to the latter.

If a topic arose concerning quantum physics or biochemistry then I'd keep my mouth shut, for the simple reason that I know nothing about it. I wish more people would follow this example.

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="domatron23"]Great idea, wrong species.domatron23
I don't think it would work with any species.......none that I can think of anyway.

One without the selfish desires and corrupting greed that comes naturally and understandably to man. Say did you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm? Great book.

Animal Farm is an allegorical polemic against Stalinism, not communism. If you'd read Homage to Catalonia, then you'd know that Orwell was a libertarian socialist himself, and that he participated in the Spanish civil war on the side of the anarcho-communists. So yes, it is a great book; it's just that you've completely misunderstood the message of it.

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts

I know, it is annoying when people don't cite studies or question their methodology but I can't do anything about that because the ones I referenced were to be found in textbooks which I no longer have. Those are some interesting stats on domestic abuse though.

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts
[QUOTE="axis_1"][QUOTE="Maverick_Chaos1"][QUOTE="markop2003"] That covers reported cases only, it's thought that men won't report it cause they're embarrassed.

Well that's pure conjecture, and although it may account for some domestic abuse, it can't compensate for around 81% more women being abused (from those statistics earlier in the thread) I see that the other points you made in this thread have already been refuted there's no need for me to go there.

It's actually been found in quite a few genuine studies that domestic violence occurs at least as often on as perpetrated by the female than as the male. - http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941 - http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf - Murray Straus: Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2001 - http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm All very good, peer reviewed articles and collbaorations of research suggesting that the public preconception of women only as victims in the vast majority of cases is, well... Bull****. Also, the wage gap is a myth that may have been true in the past but most certainly holds little to no grounding in reality today. Any disparity in wages are due mostly to differences in choice of career (Eg, the wider prevalence of men in fields such as engineering as opposed to their nonexistent presence in teaching) and working hours (Not only including maternity leave, but women are much more likely to take time off on a regular basis, not work extra hours or work part time to begin with) among other factors. If you could employ women for less than men for the same job.... Why hire men? What seems to be the main aim today is not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. Affirmitive action when equality is not only assumed, but vehemently proclaimed at every opportunity is something I find confusing, to say the least.

Well the majority of official statistics I've read contradict those claims on domestic violence and equal pay. Are you asserting that the lack of women in executive roles is due to choice? The statistics show that females achieve higher grades than males (sorry I don't have them, these were sociological studies I've read) and yet their presence in government and business is severely lacking. Could it revolve around gendered aspirations? It's much easier for women to get jobs in a white-collar service sector economy like ours because it's about aesthetics and a nice smile, these jobs are low-paid however. Men are heavily concentrated higher up though, and they'll take on managerial or executive positions over women due to their social capital. However, I must admit that I'm taking pay gap figures for granted as I don't have the statistics here. Some others have provided studies in support of this notion, the best I can do is to put this forward: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article2388419.ece
Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="markop2003"] British police i think, you can search around for the article if you want, it should be around somewhere.

19%, with less than half of those being perpetrated by female abusers.

That covers reported cases only, it's thought that men won't report it cause they're embarrassed.

Well that's pure conjecture, and although it may account for some domestic abuse, it can't compensate for around 81% more women being abused (from those statistics earlier in the thread) I see that the other points you made in this thread have already been refuted there's no need for me to go there.
Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts

Oh yeah, and I forgot to raise the topic of employment. Women still get paid 31% less than men, and because private patriarchy is a pretty exclusive club, women often don't receive promotions regardless of their abilities. Vertical and horizontal segregation are a harsh reality for women and ethnic minorities.

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts

This is one of the most ignorant, regressive threads I've ever read on here, and I've seen my fair share of them. Women do not have more rights than men, they still raise children and perform domestic work almost exclusively as well as holding down a full time job in most cases. Men are not sexually objectified as women are, and this manifests itself in women being scared to walk outside in their own neighborhoods out of fear of intimidation, harassment or even rape. How many women violently abuse their partners and children? How many men are raped by women? How many women hold significant positions of power in government or business? Even when women are raped, they're often interrogated in courtrooms as to the nature of their appearance on the night as to decide whether she was 'leading him on'. Public and private patriarchy exist in favour of men, if men are running the show then obviously women are going to be subjugated. I can't believe that this question was even raised.

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts

The punch-line is "because jungle is massive", not "because the jungle is massive". At that point it stops replicating the lyrics of the song and becomes a plain fact. It's better to tell it in person anyway so that's it's clearer what you're trying to say.

Avatar image for Maverick_Chaos1
Maverick_Chaos1

415

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Maverick_Chaos1
Member since 2007 • 415 Posts
[QUOTE="Messiahbolical-"] Uh... you don't even have the game. Buy it first. Trust me, I hated the lag before they patched it now the game is almost perfect.TheElfChild
I'm not paying a red cent for the game until I have some solid proof that it's really fixed. I watched some video comparisons after the patch, and as I said, it was only a .5 frame difference after the patch. An improvement, but I'd still notice it, and be annoyed by it. If it's really fixed, then they should patch the demo too so I can try it out - for now I'm taking the evidence I've already found.

Even if they did fix it, the game isn't very good. The campaign is really repetitive, and the multiplayer is ruined by dire voice chat options, no party mode and the other flaws I mentioned in my previous post. Also, the dialogue is terrible in the campaign, literally half of it is swearing.