one thing i am against open door policy for inferior races
-
kincaid-5 — 11 years ago(January 28, 2015 06:39 PM)
I would hardly equate pedophilia and racism in terms of negative contexts.
I would.
Pedophiles are people who somehow got their wires crossed probably because someone messed with them when they were kids, which was not their fault and they now confuse normal affection for children with sexual desire. They didn't choose that, and we don't know how to cure them.
Racists want to keep other groups in subordination, and they cover up their vile selfishness with lies and rationalizations, contrary to all scientific evidence, that the other groups are inferior.
http://redkincaid.com -
WorldSacred — 11 years ago(January 29, 2015 09:09 PM)
Pedophiles are people who have sexual attraction to young children. It's likely that I can find pedophiles to have emotional problems that need addressing. I worked with a pederast, and his problem stemmed from the fact that he was abused emotionally by his father for coming out as gay. He takes homophobic comments much more seriously than any other homosexuals. And I had to learn the more difficult way of steering clear of his temper tantrums because it would lead to getting reported for false accusations. But I digress.
Straight pedophiles obviously have some kind of emotional need to be with people who can't fight back. They might have relationships with people around their age, but they have a preference to the more "naive" people. They may keep it secret. But sometimes these people are caught out leering on children for no reason other than sexual. It's the reason parents can't take pictures of their children at sporting events.
Racists believe in the idea that race determining the ability of a person. "Black people can run faster. White people can swim better. Asian people can't drive" type of thinking. You are probably referring to racial supremacists. Racists who believe in dominating or ruling over other races. -
kincaid-5 — 11 years ago(January 31, 2015 07:10 PM)
Oh I get it. You come to this thread offering extended defenses of apartheid, one of the most rigid systems of "racial supremac[y]" in history, but when challenged, you say that "racists" are just the knuckleheads who really believe nonsense like "White men can't jump," "Black people have rhythm," etc.
http://redkincaid.com -
WorldSacred — 11 years ago(February 01, 2015 06:11 AM)
I can't recall ever being in defense of apartheid. All I said in that regard to apartheid was that it happened, and people used it for a reason. I said it was for protecting the settlers, and the other doofus attacked me trying to reason a strawman argument that I thought it was a good thing. I don't care either way about it's use. But atleast I can understand why it was implemented.
And you seem to have this idea that the apartheid was implemented to reinforce the egos of white people. I dunno. Maybe you grew up in some ghetto, and you are lashing out incited by an inferiority complex that the white man do well by disciminatin'. Don't try and reason that I think that racists are all knuckleheads. Because racists make up about 100% of the world population. I bet you wouldn't admit it, but I believe you would have differing feelings seeing a room full of a homogeneous racial group, and a multiracial group. Or for that matter, the above vitriol of how you feel about white people.
Thank you for showing people that you are a blatant hypocrite. -
brianmacsmith — 11 years ago(November 20, 2014 12:30 AM)
Its actually really terrible left-wing propaganda.
In the horrendous final act, the last sliver of uncrowded, clean land is invaded by untold thousands, perhaps millions of people, who raid all the medical supplies. These supplies are sure to do little to make even a slight dent in Earth's problems. Essentially the ridiculously "happy" ending is actually the final nail in the coffin of the human race.
Its inadvertently the most anti-immigration movie ever, and just a really REALLY bad film altogether. -
ClintJCL — 11 years ago(January 12, 2015 06:16 PM)
And in your mind, having to pay for it the way it was before the movie started is somehow morally superior.
'Tis a shame we haven't fully evolved as a species yet, to the point where people actually want unnecessary strife to occur just for the principal of it.
-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl -
elipdx — 11 years ago(February 28, 2015 11:35 PM)
Interesting. I saw this film the day Leonard Nimoy died. I will counter your sad commentary with one the character Spock said as he selflessly gave his life. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."
This thread started with an ill thought, ideological, and sad one liner, and devolved into some commentators legitimizing apartheid and Hitler's Nazism. All to present themselves as "superior" to "others", and advocate for their chosen political party.
It is precisely this "us against them" attitude that propagates the premise of this and countless other films, let alone countless failed human societies. And on those grounds alone, Elysium effectively made it's point quite clear. -
glanemann — 11 years ago(March 20, 2015 11:40 AM)
Right. I was just sitting here watching this movie and it's flat out ridiculous that anyone would think this would actually happen. I'm sure the writers, Matt Damon and many others believe this is the kind of future we'd have with Capitalism. It's beep retarded to think that people would treat others like that.
From his evil bosses, evil corporate people, the rich keeping everything from the poor, robotic cops that illegally search you and beat you with sticks, and a robotic parole officer who doesn't give a beep about people and offers pills, med beds that can cure you of anything yet they won't let poor people use them, etc.
It's a leftist wet dream and they way of telling you that big government and wealth redistribution is how we need to live. Which is asinine to begin with. I fear a big government over Microsoft any day.
I guess the scary thing is that people actually believe this garbage. -
davidlau17 — 10 years ago(July 06, 2015 08:45 AM)
It's beep retarded to think that people would treat others like that.
Indeed. Everyone knows that all rich people also happen to be a faultless humanitarians. Nobody ever takes advantage of anyone else in this country. Nope. Well, except for those stinky, detestable poor people who want FREE healthcare without earning it.
Who are the people with the dangerous ideology again? -
johmil-18374 — 10 years ago(May 13, 2015 05:12 AM)
So a a repressive hierarchy structure is great, ofcource. Ridicolous post here by someone that taxes are like stealing, most money is just from rich families so the kids have done nothing to earn it. Secondly sick people should always get the best care regardless of class, every western country for example can afford that. And instead of thinking that society is stealing my money i would like to contribute and if i pay a lot of taxes because of high earning i certanly would be a important part of a functional society. Instead of just behaving like a angry dog with its bone..mine,mine.
-
joshvenus — 10 years ago(July 12, 2015 06:15 AM)
I find it upsetting that general society's thinking assumes that equality must equal socialism and even more upsetting that this then means we must debate "Left vs Right". I do believe the "Right" is selfish but I also believe the "Left" is naive; neither is correct/true, both are arrogant. Once you pick a side and reject the other, you cannot be correct - science has only been so successful at presenting the truth as it has gradually been becoming empirical and motivated only by finding the truth, rather than worrying about whether that truth is "good" or "bad" - you must always consider al sides. (Though there are many examples of science which is motivated by assumed beliefs, but that is a debate for another thread).
Understandably people believe that all changes to societal structure must come from the top down; most if not all revolutionary changes we have seen previously have happened this way. The revolutionaries usually take power and then enforce their ideals on those they have power over: Napoleon, Lenin, Castro and so on. I'm not going to get into whether this is a "good" or "bad" thing (good/bad is too subjective to have a rational opinion on). This is simply a truth.
Forced redistribution, as discussed earlier in this thread, certainly has hurt many and we have great examples of how this is negative to some if not all (Stalin, Mau). But no currently existing society / political system is free of forced redistribution; legal ownership is forced redistribution. Sounds crazy but if you look at things logically legal ownership is simply redistributing "property" from the world at large (human or otherwise) to an individual entity, enforced by legality (upheld by judicial systems). Hence, it is (en)forced (re)distribution. The only "good" (I apologise for using this term) distribution is none at all.
I have never read Marx myself but I am led to believe that his utopian communist society follows this principle of no legal ownership / no such thing as property. His arguments on how we achieve this may or may not be flawed but how can we argue the goal is not noble? Yet we do, and most of the "Right" will froth at the mouth to tell you how it is not practical, without admitting that it is noble. This is a prime example of why it IS inherently selfish to be rightist.
But if we really believe that we want all in the world to be healthy and free to enjoy what this world has to offer (I do, and I hope you do also, deep down) then the medium for how we achieve this is a separate argument. While I identify more with socialists than capitalists, it is the goal that is important, not the means.
The question I pose to the classic "Right-wing" is: If we could live in a completely anarchist society (no government, no inherent power of legal enforcement) and people, by their own disposition, do not hurt one another, only endeavour to help one another, and, though it may seems a fantastical idea, this allowed everyone to be healthy and happy - would you still reject this kind of world?
My honest opinion is that if we all rejected political / philosophical tribalism then we would be much closer to reaching our utopia. I am from the UK so we also have the painful and meaningless Red/Blue (Labour/Conservative) conundrum that plagues any real answers being found to creating utopia. .
I challenge all conservatives / rightists / communists / leftists etc who read this to tell me why I am wrong and why their beliefs are actually the most "moral" (another good/bad analogy I resent having to use, blame the limitations of my vocabulary) and the most selfless. Because I am confident in my beliefs that I am correct and though I do not have the answers, my opinions as displayed here are one of the better examples of how we might find these answers.
Otherwise, just admit you are selfish, greedy and arrogant and stop arguing with each other when you may as well be killing each other. When the dust settles it will be the people like myself ("anarchists") that remain to build a better world - if it isn't a nuclear wasteland by then - so just bloody get on with it.
TL;DR to respond to the OP, how can they be wanting it for "free" / can that be a negative thing, when everything is fundamentally free anyway? You are born naked with no property so you have no more of a fundamental right to it than "they" do. -
Ratchapakinai — 10 years ago(July 30, 2015 09:41 PM)
FYI dip beep - it's a movie. For those of us who aren't moronic Americans who think there is a political agenda behind everything and/or everything presented to us is racist is some way, it is a really good film. Try watching the film without being a moron - you just might enjoy it.
-
dwallfilm — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 10:29 AM)
Not a rush fan just watch what is happening.
Libs are gone and replaced by globalist progressives. Not sure who Republicans are today, we will know in a couple years.
Progs are telling school kids that govt creates jibs-not. They cost 2 private industry jobs.
Blomfeld just made a movie about his view of South africa. Picked anti-USA Damon and Foster to star,,, surprise. Turned both off, will miss Damon's acting but adios Bourne.
Cubalmao. the entire world, except USA, supported Cuba and the commies still chose poverty to stay in control. Obama just chose to make Castro more wealthy.
All that works is lightly regulated capitalism, the world is finally getting it, just have to move past obama and his billionaire friends. Gonna be great seeing all those free market jobs created. -
dwallfilm — 10 years ago(September 18, 2015 10:33 AM)
Do want to see Bay's Benghazi film, if he is truthful. If not it will be a joke. Want to see what delayed the heavily armed local convoy that arrived two hours late. If Bay did not cover the convoy will be a waste or if he is a fluffer for clintons.
