At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
Hint: This is OS Feedback Group, not debate class, but okay =]
I probably should've done this on another subject thingy, huh?
i wasn't paying attention to which subject i was in but i think it can work
Oh, and guess what? It involves math. Notice the xy plane and the circle?
lol, I actually do think without math there is no logic- other subject, like science and even social science had math involved in it. But would'nt you agree with the fact that with more government, there would be more tyranny. The people should have full right their property, property that shouldn't belong to the government. In fact in many nations today, such as china, we see the gov. taking advantage of the people; no opposition to the gov. is allowed or else the people are directly sent to prison and tortured.
The government is like a huge snowball effect. Going to take an equal and opposite force to stop it, but not without major damage occurring.
more like he gov. starts the whole snowball effect. The gov. always defends the rich, they're always for their self-interest, and like I said, we see so many countries with people without their rights. The main message of communism is that 'everything belongs to the state' but how do we always know that the gov. is 'going to take an equal and opposite force' to stop that snowball effect? Do you have any examples or proof?
The proof that exists has yet to show its existence. We're talking about the proof to stop the government as we know it for good. I'm not aware of the existence of such an entity other than God himself, but that would be taking a religious rather than political standpoint.
No, but I'm not saying we stop the government. I'm saying instead having the poeple serve the gov., we have it reversed. I believe that people should have more power that the government, and because that's the opposite in a communist, democracy works way better economically, and in many other aspects.
The government already believes it serves the people. I guess one goal would be to convince them that they're not? Just mentioning anything of that nature might be considered blasphemous, treasonous, or torture-chamberous.
Can you tell me about one communist government, and how 'it serves the people'?
To the government, management = servitude. You have to understand that serving someone is synonymous with being a slave to them.
And usually slaves do not love their masters.
So if the government already thinks they're serving us, then we're the masters and they're the slaves. From the government's twisted point of view, this is true.
So, are you saying that a communist government is already a slave to their people or has the intention for the well-being of the people. Their intention, or what they say doesn't matter. When it comes to communism, lets admit it there's always ristrictions to people's life- thats what we've been seeing throughout history, till today. Eventually when we begin restrict activities and other things for the people, the economy collapses, leading to poverty, job-losses. Just look at North Korea.
Because slaves do not love their masters, they usually scheme up some kind of plot against them so that they free themselves and are no longer slaves. Thus the government, under the guise of communism seek to accomplish this goal.
but I'm talking democracy. people choose what they want with their tax-money, people are represented by their government. They don't directly 'slave' the government in such a crucial way. Plus when we look at politics, says in Canada or USA (both democracy) you see politicians bringing up so many things to try to impress the people, show them that they're the leaders. They don't do it so they can one day get revenge on the people. Citizens would get to vote every four years or so. The term 'people' applies to politicians too, because they're also citizens. If they themselves want to live in peace in harmony, as leaders, they take their responsibility seriously.
(when would you like this debate to end?)
Are you sure this is a debate? I never really referred to it as that. I prefer to call it a discussion/sharing of ideas.
oh, haha. I thought it was a debate.
but I now that i think about it- it was like a panel discussion.