DeathBug

Hmmm, a quick list: *Graduating from high school *Getting my first real job *Spider-Man 2 (Saw it three times in theaters!) *Starting college *Losing my virginity. *The above bullet didn't happen. *I just wanted to get your attention *Voting for the first time, and for the winner, too On the whole, 2004 was the best year of my life, and I expect 2005 to easily exceed it.

Resolutions are usually empty promises; if you're not already working towards them by the time it's 1 Jan, the odds you'll start are pretty low. My resolutions, which I've already started on, are four-fold: *Get into shape; I've already started doing double weight sets at the gym. The important thing is to stay in the habit. *Balance my finances better. I've already started...uh, balancing. *Balance my time between school and work better. Again, already started. *Work out my position regarding a specific female: Well, really, this isn't your business.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade'] Let's not get all self-righteous here, folks, there's no such thing as "what is morally correct." If you think you are so damn right that your morals should be forced onto others, then just outright say it.[/quote] Oh, of course there's stuff that's morally correct. In case you haven't noticed, what the vast majority of arguments in society are about is which set of actions are the most morally correct. And you've already decided that it's morally correct not to make moral judgements, so don't get too full of yourself.

None of these are anime, but I like re-watching Buffy the V ampire Slayer, classic Simpsons, and Scrubs. When I re-watch the anime I own, I like to watch the whole thing over a period of several days, so it's not a casual decision.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]I don't see what place a bunch of older white guys have passing legislation regarding a woman's reproductive rights.[QUOTE] I think anyone who was a former fetus has valid input on this topic. After all, we chose those same older white guys to decide a lot of other things for us.

My views on abortion are simple: Within the first trimester, (prior to the fetus having brain activity), I think the mother should be able to do whatever she wishes. That's a three-month period, so there's pleanty of time to make the call. Clrification: I think [i]the mother should be able to get an abortion if she wants within the first three-month period.[/i] Do I think she should make that choice? Nope. A fetus is a human being, and having an abortion is killing one. I bel.ieve that some instances can arise where the killing of human beings is necessary (war, the death penalty), but it's never a good thing when you've come to that point. I'd uge any person considering abortion to explore other options first. And, of course, partial-birth abortions should be outlawed, and those involved with them should be tried for murder. (Partial birth abortions involve inducing labour and then cutting open the b ack of the baby's skull to remove the brain, then slicing the child's limbs off. The baby, by the way, is at this point old enough to otherwie survive outside the mother's body.)

I'm a non-denominational Christian. Well, technically, I was baptized as a Luthren, but I dislike on principle the splintering of Christianity. The various schisms within the faiths happened for very specific reasons that are, for the most part, no longer valid. Why are we still holding onto differences that seperate us, when the commonalities of our faith should be bringing us together? Granted, I've been told occassionally that some of my core beliefs don't jive with some Biblical teachings, but I don't really buy that. My biggest beef is with the concept of damnation on the basis of differing faith. I'm not going to speak for all Christians, but I know that the God I believe in wouldn't send, say, Ghandi to Hell.

I didn't notice anyone emphasizing this, and my apologies if someone did: Who actually read the article? [quote name='http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1103399108768_2/?hub=World']Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. The margin of error was 3.6 percentage points. [/quote] One poll of 715 people? Performed by college students? And [i]that's[/i] the basis for the bitching? And meanwhile, everyone ignores the incidences of horrible discrimination against Muslims in Europe, particularly France. How disturbing.

Maybe we can have Batman movies now that don't make my soul die a little when I watch them? Half of the franchise, sadly, is garbage, which is a real shame. Will this be the movie that reignites the magic? Here's hoping. And although everyone's raving about Ra, i'm much more interested in Scarecrow. He's cool.

Next summer? Good; as a bookstore employee, I'm tired of not being able to answer that question. ^^;

[quote name='Pumpkin'] I live in California. So I find that somewhat offensive. [/quote] So, you're offended that I'm making fun of Californians for being too easily offended? Rest assured that if you have the common sense to look at things like changing the state flag for no apparent reason, runaway state Supreme Courts and the entire town of Hollywood and realise that they're rather stupid, I'm not talking about you.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']They were never "applications of communism." Only the US in its ignorance called it Communism when the rest of the world knew it was Socialism. [/quote] Ignorance? Mao and his cronies called what he was doing Communism. As did Stalin, as did Castro, etc.

You know, this actually restores a belief in the criminal justice system that's been wonky since the OJ Simpson trial. An obviously guilty man getting the death sentence for violently killing his wife and unborn child? Who'd a' thought?

[quote name='Siren']Everything you've said here is trite and meaningless, DB, and here's why. Read and comprehend what I'm saying here, all right?[/quote] You're saying the same thing you've said before: Marxist Communism isn't the communism of Mao, Stalin, Castro, etc. I'm going to say what I've been saying: Marxist Communism never existed, and is therefore irrelevent. Until someone actually implements it, it's just an idea. [QUOTE]You're condemning an Ideal based on a misapplication of the Ideal. Marx would [i]freak out[/i] if he saw what vandals and sociopaths did to his idea.[/QUOTE] Again, only one form of the ideal has ever existed: the perverted demonic version. As long as that remains the only version in existance, it's the only one that matters at all. Ideas mean nothing if they're not implemented. [QUOTE]Hell, even Dmitry, who lived in the USSR, was adamant about how Marx's Communism was twisted around, and how what we see there isn't anywhere close to what Marx was saying, and therefore does not reflect any aspect of Marx's Communism, making any assessment of Marx's Communism based on the misapplication brought about by sociopaths and dictators entirely null and void, because any assessment seeking to condemn Marx's Communism is based on a twisting of Marx's Communism, and not Marx's Communism itself.[/QUOTE] Marx's communism never existed. I've already said that. I'm not referring to it. [QUOTE]You want to talk reality, DB? How about the reality that you're [i]not[/i] basing your argument on reality, just like in NCLB.[/QUOTE] You're defending an idea that's never been implemented, and that's "reality"? [QUOTE]You're trying to condemn Marx's Communism based on the misapplication of it by thugs and dictators. Marx would go absolutely insane if he were to see how his idea was getting twisted around. What you're trying to base your argument on is something that [i]Marx himself[/i] would hate.[/QUOTE] I don't care about Marx at all, or his version of communism. Until it's implemented, it's just an idea. I know that every other version of communism that's been implemented has been a humanitarian nightmare, and even the staunchest Marxist won't deny that. [QUOTE]I'm a [i]Marxist Pythonian[/i]. It seems to me that Marxists aren't the issue here, anyway. Seems to me that the real issue is people not wanting to hear how Marx's Communism isn't as bad as those people want to believe it is.[/QUOTE] It also seems to me that you're using your defense of Marx as a shield to avoid admitting that the forms of communism that have been used were disasters, and that communism attracts more barberous dictators than any ideology in history. [QUOTE]Oh, ideas are certainly bound to their originators. Does Solipsism invalidate Plato's Cave, or transform it into something it never was in the first place? Come on, lol.[/QUOTE] What about, say, democracy? The original idea and what it is today are certainly different creatures, aren't they? That's why we make distinctions like "Athenian democracy", or "Democratic republic"; because the ideas evolve and change over time as they are implemented. If you or anyone wants to create a communist society closer to Marx's original design, you're first going to have to learn from the many failures of the system as it was implemented before. If you simply say "It wasn't real communism" and brush it off, as it seems you're doing, you're doomed to repeat history. [quote name='DeathKnight]No, I don't have a pre-existing bias. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, they preach political neutrality in their neverending rhetoric- so I had no opinion on any of this until I split from my religious upbringing a year and a half ago, lol. I've studied this extensively since then and I find both systems to be rather inefficient [especially Communism'] when applied to real life nations- as has been proven over and over again through history. I find people who are biased against or for either one of these systems to be likewise foolish, lol. That's the kind of "plastic bubble" you must be kept in to avoid that bias that does void your opinion. The one that keeps you from coming off as a zealous fool.[/quote] You'll concede, however, that you're unique among the population? I don't see how anyone who isn't activly striving to be unbiased can remain totally unbiased. I'm biased against communism, and Siren's biased towards it; that's why we're arguing. My point is that his bias isn't based in reality, and his is the same regarding me. [quote name='ScriosDarkBlade']But the thing is, DeathBug, that communism never existed, in any form. It does not have a failing record because it has NO RECORD. If that is what Siren is saying, he is correct. Governments have reached for it (or pretended to, as was the case with the USSR), but never even come close to attaining it. Marx's communism, which is communism (DB are you talking about socialism? different social and economic principles apply to it, and that's really what you could even judge as it HAS been implemented and continues to be) NOT used as a misnomer, has never been tested, either to success or failure.[/quote] And I argue that the applications of communism, flawed as they may be compared to the original doctrine, are the [b]only ones[/b] to have ever existed, and are therefore the only ones that matter.

[QUOTE=Siren]DeathBug, you're missing the point entirely. Others have already mentioned how communism never killed anyone. To blame an Ideal for chaos is like blaming Christianity for the Crusades, and we all know you're not that dense, lol.[/QUOTE] I think I understand the point; your view of communism is a hypothetical situation that's never existed, despite attempts all over the world. My view is based on what actually happened when these ideas were implemented. And I'm naive? You want to talk about Christianity? You know why you can draw a line between "real Christianity" and misapplications in its name? Because "real Christianity" exists outside of the abuses of its ideals. You can point to it. States in the US whoe population identify themselves as majorly Christian, for example, give a proportinatly larger amount of their income to charities than those who don't. There's a single example of real Christian ideas being practiced. Where is an example of "true communism" accomplishing great things? Point it out to me. Wait, you can't. Because Communism has a 100% failing record. You place faith in a theory that's never accomplished anything, and I'm the one who's naive? [QUOTE]Now, Marx's initial idea of communism is both "true communism" and "real communism." There's no difference between the two terms there. They're one in the same.[/QUOTE] Yes, well, Marx is dead, and his movement continued without him. It continued in a horrible and perverted way, I'll be the first to admit, but you can't keep using that as your escape from a rational argument. Ideas aren't bound to their originators; they survive and evolve on their own. [QUOTE]The communism that you're talking about is [i]not[/i] "real communism." It's "[i]fake[/i] communism," because it's a twisting and mockery of what Marx was saying, and a [i]false and misleading[/i] application of Marx's ideas.[/QUOTE] Honestly, I don't care what you want to call it. I'll compromise and call it "Marx's communism" to avoid being judgemental, but the end result is, it's never existed, and is therefore irrelevent. When a successful application of Marx's communism has been created and sustains itself, then I'll revise my opinion accordingly. Until then, Marx's communism is a fairy tale. [QUOTE=DeathKnight]Nothing personal DeathBug, but you being biased severely diminishes your opinion's, hm- what's the word. Your opinion's.. weight, I suppose. It doesn't mean as much if you admit to not being objective. Now, you are a very intelligent person- so I respect your opinion- I just don't really find it to be valid to agree with, as you are biased. I have nothing further to say to you because Siren and James pretty much covered it. It's funny we're considering this as true democracy and true communism have, so far, never existed in it's purist, most idealistic form. I guess I might be implying this doesn't have much of a point- but, that's arguable.[/QUOTE] I'm failing to follow your logic here. Yes, I have a pre-existing opinion of one of the most important issues of the past century; you're telling me you don't? What kind of plastic bubble of isolation must I be kept in to avoid bias that apparently voids my opinion? And if I'm biased against communism, why isn't Siren biased towards it? And, you're right; as long as Marxists cling to social fairy tales and refuse to acknowledge what really happened to their movement, (it became the tool of thugs and dictators), then arguments will continue to be pointless. The first step to solving a problem is to admit you have one; Marxists refuse to do that, then wonder why people don't take them seriously.

It's an apples-and-oranges comparison to say that a country has done something better/worse than an ideal. Besides, your facts are wrong. How can a country with slightly more than a 200 year history be responaible for more death than European or Asian countries that have existed for centuries?

Reprinted here is the final report on my psyche class experiment; I thought some might find it interesting. ___________ Reading the Fine Print Introduction There?s an old adage amongst business people that goes ?Always read the fine print?; in many cases, it?s easier for a person signing documentation to simply gloss over details, even though another adage reminds us that the Devil is in them. These adages exist for a reason: it?s simple common sense to know exactly what you?re signing before you?re legally bound to it. However, is the common sense truly that common? Our group set out to test that. We wanted to see how likely the average person is to follow through with the conventional wisdom, and read an entire legal document, in this case, a petition. Our background investigation into similar research was surprisingly unfruitful. While there were instances of testing an average person?s awareness, these experiments aren?t comparable to ours because it was the subject matter of the petition that contained the questionable material, such as banning dihydrogen monoxide and ending women?s suffrage. Our experiment, as you will see, had an inherently deceitful petition. Method The petition is simple, on the surface: we wish to increase the penalties on those who speed in school zones during the posted hours. The cause is simple, noble, non-offensive and a bit generic; it requires little thought on the part of the person signing. Our petitioners will each present the cause in the same manner, (?Would you like to sign to increase penalties on those who speed in school zones??), and hand the subject a copy of the petition to sign. However, the actual petition paper contains the crux of the experiment the first half of the paper clearly explains the cause we petition for, referencing the law and such. However, the second half of the page explains to the reader that this is, in fact, an experiment, and instructs them to please return the paper, unsigned, to the petitioner. The transition is seamless between the two subjects; the only way to understand what?s going on is to actually read the entire petition. Our hypothesis is that the vast majority of those petitioned won?t read our actual petition, and merely sign on the basis of our explanation to them. This sloppiness can be a result of many factors, including naiveté, impatience, or general ignorance of details. The end results, however, will be the same: most people won?t read the document they sign. An interesting thing happened in our first experiment, however; the initial experiment trial yielded overwhelmingly favorable results for our hypothesis. Because the nature of the project stresses the ability to discuss our process, we decided to change it, to allow more material for discussion in the final report. Because the initial petition was formed with the public interest in mind, we felt that it would be interesting to create a second petition that was beneficial to a majority of the people we were likely to petition, though it may not be so for the rest of the community. So, our second petition proposed to lower the Florida drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen years old. It didn?t much affect the outcome regarding our hypothesis, but the process became much more interesting, to say the least. Because our hypothesis we very general, we wanted a large cross-section of the population to be our subjects. Our only set requirement was that subjects be sixteen or older; otherwise, we wanted the sample to be as random as possible. We ?petitioned? at the Brandon campus of HCC, in two groups of two. We petitioned twice, both times in the early afternoons on consecutive Wednesdays. {Name Witheld}and {Name Witheld 2}petitioned on the first Wednesday; Eric Wilson and {Name Withneld 2} petitioned the following week. One member of our group played as the petitioner, while another collected demographic data. Each group petitioned for two hours, alternating the role of petitioner and observer every half-hour. We walked the length of both floors of the campus several times, but didn?t enter any rooms. We were interested in discovering if there is a correlation between a person?s age, gender or race and their likelihood to read the petition. Our independent variable was our façade petition, which explains its true purpose in black and white to anyone who reads it. The dependent variable was the subject whom the petition is given to. If the subject actually read the entire paper, they would have returned it unsigned; if they hadn?t, they would have signed it. Included with this report are both of our petitions, and the script we created to introduce our petition to our subjects. Results The results of our experiment overwhelmingly supported our hypothesis; the vast majority of those petitioned didn?t read the actual document as they signed it. Below is a graphical representation of our data. As you can see, there is a very, very large difference between those who read the petition and those who didn?t. In short, our hypothesis was proved within the parameters of the experiment. A total of one hundred and two people were petitioned successfully, but only eight people actually read the petition. Percentage-wise, only 7.84 percent read the entire document before signing. Considering the complexity and abundance of legal documentation in our daily lives, the figure is a bit frightening, but not totally unexpected. Discussion In retrospect, there were many things we could have done to make this a more accurate experiment. First and foremost was our sample; we were pragmatically limited to the HCC Brandon campus after the Brandon Town Center Mall denied us permission to experiment on their grounds. Our sample is therefore not necessarily applicable to a larger population. On a similar note, the sample size was further limited by our needs to fit the experiment into our schedules; we petitioned twice, on the same day of the week, around the same time. Suffice it to say, our sample size was very limited. For a truly applicable experiment, the petitioning would have been done at all times of day, in large public areas where larges numbers of people converge. Another factor to consider is the actual presentation of the petition; the presentation speech was consistent, but the presenters were all male, and obviously students. Had there been a female petitioner, or a teacher/authority figure petitioner, we may have gotten different results, or a larger sample. There were also some instances of people who seemed to have read the entire petition, yet signed it anyway. At first we thought there might be ambiguity in our instructions within the petition, but the occurrences were so rare that we decided it was simply an odd happening. However, with such a small sample size, these individuals undoubtedly skewed our results. While selecting people to petition, we avoided those on cell phones, as well as those leaving lavatories, for obvious reasons. We weren?t prepared for anyone to take detailed interest in our petitions; as such, we didn?t have ready-made answers for people who asked questions regarding the petition?s sponsor, or the scope of the ?movement?; we had to make up answers on the spot. In retrospect, we should have had a simple faux-history prepared regarding our petition in case we were asked. We also had several people who were reluctant to fill out the entire petition form, not wanting to give out such important data; one subject even grew indignant regarding it. It may have been simpler to request only the name and street address, or name and phone number. To ease our subjects, we asked that they only filled out the information they felt comfortable giving. (An interesting phenomena occurred regarding the information given by subjects; if the first person to sign on one petition sheet filled out all the requested information, the subsequent signers were much more likely to do the same. On the other hand, if the first person signed only their name and left the other information blank, that became the trend for that sheet. A conformity experiment could be conducted using a method similar to ours, but with the focus on the patterns of the signatures.) Finally, the most interesting part of the project: the difference in reaction regarding the two surveys. As expected, there was very little criticism of the school-zone survey, because it was recognized as a generally noble cause. However, what was surprising was that many people who refused to sign did so on the grounds that they sped in school zones, and didn?t want to get hit with a steeper penalty. (Referencing a point made earlier, we may not have gotten such a response had a perceived authority figure conducted the petition, instead of a perceived peer.) We had assumed that some people wouldn?t sign that petition for that reason, but we?d thought that no one would actually admit to it. The fact that some did without hesitation was a bit disheartening. Because we weren?t keeping data on those who refused to take the petition, we can?t produce a definite number of people who reacted in such a way. In retrospect, collecting data on all the people we approached, and gauging their reaction to the petition subject might have better served us. The drinking age petition produced much more varied results, however. Some people were as enthusiastic as we?d thought they?d be, but others reacted with confusion, and some with anger. Similar to the people who didn?t sign because they sped in school zones, many subjects replied that they didn?t care about the drinking age because they were under twenty-one and drank anyway. The antithesis of this group were those over twenty-one that said that they had to wait, so everyone else should as well. Without question, however, the most memorable response was the young man who exploded with, ?Why the H*ll you lil? drunk-a** b*tches tryin? to lower the drinking age? Like we need drunk-a** freshmen all over the place, runnin? into everyone!? Regarding the varied reactions we received to our petition, we realized midway through the process that no matter how interesting they were, they simply didn?t matter to the actual project, because we took no consideration of anyone who didn?t actually accept the petition. Perhaps we should have created a means to gauge public response to the petition, in addition to recording those who actually read it. However, this would have created more variables, and as armature experimenters, we have an inherently limited amount that we can effectively process. In conclusion, had we performed this experiment again, we would have done several things differently. First, we would have a more diverse group performing the petition, and we would have performed it within a more diverse area, a small ?melting pot? scene such as a mall or movie theater. Second, we would have petitioned over a much broader period of time, to get as much of a diverse sample as possible. We would also have asked for much less personal data on the petition, to avoid scaring away potential signers. We would have created a method of recording the reactions of the public to the petition as well, and been able to gather correlative data between the reactions of the people within different demographics; we also would keep a tally of those who refused to sign. Finally, we would have put much more thought into our petition subject and how it might influence the outcome of the experiment; is it better to go with a non-descript subject, or to go with a controversial and potentially volatile one? For the purpose of this experiment, where only the signature and reading of the petition mattered, the less-offensive petition was more effective. However, if the scope of the experiment is widened to include subject reaction, controversy may be key. However, we firmly believe that even if we allocated all the time and resources necessary to properly carry out this experiment, the results would still remain the same: the vast majority of people won?t read what they?re signing.

Communism is in the lead by a long, long distance. It killed more people than the Holocost. Second, only the Democrats were blind enough not to realize that America has been the most hated nation for over a decade now. But that's another thread.

Garelock, decmocracy and the Democratic party in the United States aren't related other than by name. Democracy, in the instance we're speaking of, is the ideal of people choosing their government by a voting process. The Democratic party, on the other hand, are a bunch of... I'll stop myself before I get off topic. Hey, if Marx's initial idea of communism is "true communism", can we call the communism that's killed millions of people "Real communism", since it's the only one that's actually existed?

I think world peace will be achieved when the entire worldwide neighborhood is so economically, technologically and socially connected that to start war would be destructive for all parties, for no gain.

[quote name='Lore][size=1']That was pretty giggletastic. ^_^[/size][/quote] Well, I'm glad someone's enjoying it then; I'm sure not. =P

[QUOTE]This particular normally abnormal day seemed almost abnormally abnormal, in such a way that was abnormal to the normal. Which was, of course, abnormal.[/QUOTE] Can I have this for my sig? ^__^

In all fairness, Christianity is the only religion people get really upset about. Also in all fairness, it [i]is[/i] California, so it's not exactly a good measurement of the rest of the country. (They haven't sunk into the ocean yet?) In a related story, the Govenator changed the title of the big tree in the town square from a "holiday" tree back to a "Christmas" tree, and said it would remain that way as long as he was Govenor. So, it's not totally a hopeless situation.

[quote name='Siren']DeathBug, I find your comments here to be very, very naive.[/quote] Yet, at the bottom of this post, you're going to tell me that my views are biased by my experiences. So, which am I? Naive or experienced? [QUOTE]I by far am not a Communist, nor communist, and even then, I can say with confidence that the Communism you see in China, the USSR, and Cuba is [i]not[/i] "true communism" in the sense of what Marx was professing. [/QUOTE] I never said that it was. My point is, communism's been tried many times by many different societies, yet "true communism" has never been produced. Why? Perhaps it can't be; I believe it can't. The system is inherantly flawed. [QUOTE] The fact that only dictators and tyrants have used those ideas is irrelevant and doesn't change anything about Socialism or Marx's communism, and also doesn't condemn Marx's teachings, because like it or not, the Communism we see in the world today is a mis-application of Marx's ideas.[/QUOTE] I think it's foolish to dismiss these facts out of hand. The worst human-rights attrocities of the last century have been committed in the name of communism. Famous communist leaders read like a Who's Who list of crazy dictators. Ignoring history is dangerous. [QUOTE]Read Marx. Read what he had to say. Read about where he was living during that time when he began developing these economic principles. Marx's Socialism arose out of Marx's disgust with the labor conditions of England circa the 1850s. Think about the labor conditions for a few moments.[/QUOTE] I have read Marx, and I'm fully aware of what the working conditions were during his life. I'm not at all supporting those conditions. I'm saying that his solution was flawed then, and continues to be flawed when presented to day. And if you want to bring Marx into this, personally, he was a sod. [QUOTE]You want to talk about competition advancing society? I think the entire lower and middle class population of 1850s England that are stuck in that rat race economic competitive system might just disagree with you that competition in economics was helping them in any way at all.[/QUOTE] But, here's the important part: after the runaway economics and lassiez faire was reigned in, society had advanced, technologically and socially. [QUOTE]You want to talk More and Utopia? Fine, lol.[/QUOTE] I know More didn't believe in the idea of Utopia; why would he? It was a judgemental and stagnant society that squelched individuality. [QUOTE]Also, if you were to read Utopia, and then read Marx's writings, you'd find that the ideas are pretty similar. Marx envisioned an equal society; More did, as well. Their writings show that.[/QUOTE] Of course they're similar; like you said, they were working under the same idea. [QUOTE]Then why are we having this discussion with you? lol You're not receptive to the idea, because you already have a preconceived notion of what "true communism" is.[/QUOTE] You're saying that my notions are shaped by my life experiences? Gasp! Of course I'm biased, and of course it's due to my prior experiences; why does my mind have to be a blank slate before I can be said to be worthy of discussion? why wouldn't a person who has experience with something be welcomed in the discussion of the topic? And I have no perception of "true communism", per sae, because we've all agreed that "true c ommunism" hasn't been achieved. My view is that the attempts to reach it have been so disasterous that perhaps it's time to admit the concept isn't feasible or worthwhile. Again, how many times does it have to fail before it can be called a bad idea? [QUOTE]A bit more than warped, I'd say. And why would Socialists, communists, etc, go to Cuba, anyway, when it's clearly a case of Socialism Gone Bad (ignoring the fact that it's not exactly a prime vacation spot)?[/QUOTE] That there was me being snide; I'm rather irriated by US communists who enjoy the luxeries created by moderated capitalism and are deathly critical of it.

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875] So this is not just something that conservatives do. It's also something that leftists do. In other words, both ends of the spectrum like to simplify things that aren't simple. That's kind of a long response, but hopefully you know what I mean now. If anyone wants to call communism "evil" that's their right -- and I'd agree that, based on my own morals, the concept of communism isn't exactly right. But I really don't like it when people come in and say "it's evil, end of story". That kind of kills the opportunity to have a reasonable discussion about it, with any level of depth.[/color][/QUOTE] Fair enough; however, I think that this matter isn't as complex as people say. How many times have communist societies been built in the world, in different cultures and situations in history? And how did they all turn out? Communists like to say that there's never been an example of "true communism", and that Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Min and Castro are just dictators misusing the idea. Is it just a coincidence that the same idea is constantly the tool of dictators and tyrants? And if none of their varients are "true" communism, what is? Communists also like to say that it's the human drive for competition that ruins communism. It's the human drive for competition that advances society in any way; why would we want to completely eliminate it? That argument doesn't fly either. You've heard that one of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing multiple times, expecting different results? It's not really a good fit at all, but that reminds me of communism. How many different societies have to be screwed over by this "Utopian" ideology before we can admit it's flawed? (Not that More's "Utopia" was worth living in in the first place.) Granted, I'll admit I'm not unbiased on the subject. I went to Eastern Europe as a child, and saw what the communist system did to people. Not countries or economies, but people. It was horrid. Now I live in Florida, and the parents of several of my friends chose to jump on a shoddy raft into the Mediterranian rather than live in their "paradise". So perhaps such experiences have warped my perceptions. But you never see communists hopping aboard a raft to Cuba.