EPTNorth Korea acting a fool(again). - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States44448 Posts
| ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On October 07 2006 20:39 GunSlinger wrote: [removed quote within quote] dont argue with a communist about communism. becuase in all actuality you are the one looking like the fool. did you take some fancy history course and now you think you know all about it? you are just spewing facts, not telling me why its bad. but i dont have the time to argue with someone who obviously never looks at it from different perspectives. ... This is just a great way to look like a retard, starting off your sentence with "don't argue with a communist about communism". Gone are the days when people would prove their point with facts and properly structued arguments. Wow. You're a communist are you. Retard. And yes, I am taking a degree in history and I have studied history and politics. And you're right, what I'm saying are facts. Communism does claim to know the future, something you accused me of. And Marxism and true communism are the same, although you claimed the opposite, in fact, mocked me for it. You're simply wrong. Umm... for a historian it's sure funny that you would use 'communism' where you should have used 'marxism'. How would you even equate Marxism to "true communism"? This calls for some exlanation, beginning with you defining the terms. | ||
|
GunSlinger
614 Posts
P.S. - hippo, if you are going to put something in italics...at least spell all the words right. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
| ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
 | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
GunSlinger
614 Posts
| ||
|
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
On October 07 2006 21:14 GunSlinger wrote: its capitalization, not punctuation. and no, im not twelve. i defended my position, by simply stating my view. he insulted the entire idea. that doesn't mean that i don't see things from the other side. i do consider it superior (that's why i believe in it...) and if you think the soviet union wasn't a big enough test then you should hit the history books. Can you read? I'm not talking about communism, I'm talking about your interpretation of things. Oh wait, I know your next reply! "I'm writing, not talking". You probably didn't even notice that you do in fact improperly punctuate your sentences. You can't improperly capitalize you see. It's a pity you didn't bite the hook of "ingenuous". In any case, I see now you're not worth debating; you won't even bother trying to understand the meaning of a post before you reply. | ||
|
GunSlinger
614 Posts
On October 07 2006 21:21 Hippopotamus wrote: [removed quote within quote] Can you read? I'm not talking about communism, I'm talking about your interpretation of things. Oh wait, I know your next reply! "I'm writing, not talking". You probably didn't even notice that you do in fact improperly punctuate your sentences. You can't improperly capitalize you see. It's a pity you didn't bite the hook of "ingenuous". In any case, I see now you're not worth debating; you won't even bother trying to understand the meaning of a post before you reply. i don't even know who you are...and for some strange reason you be hatin' on me. and i now have something to JLiG. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
And GunSlinger, it's okay to lose an argument to somebody who knows more about the topic than you and still keep your stance on what you believe even after losing -- I do it all the time. But stop posting things that aren't addressing main points and are going around the argument in hopes of getting the last word... Anyways, if I changed my views everytime I talked to somebody who is better at debating than me, I'd hold myself in very low regard. Granted, I know when to conceded defeat and change my stance, too, or at least that's what I think ;D | ||
|
KwarK
United States44448 Posts
On October 07 2006 21:09 haduken wrote: LOL. good one kwark. Calling a civil war a war of invasion. They were two separate nations at the time. Democratic government in the south and the military elite the Soviets left behind in the north. The fact both nations had the word Korea in the name does not make it a civil war. Two separate states with a border between them and separate governments. The name of the states really isn't an issue, it was still an invasion of one state by another. | ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
On October 07 2006 22:13 Kwark wrote: [removed quote within quote] They were two separate nations at the time. Democratic government in the south and the military elite the Soviets left behind in the north. The fact both nations had the word Korea in the name does not make it a civil war. Two separate states with a border between them and separate governments. The name of the states really isn't an issue, it was still an invasion of one state by another. alright, since klogon confirms it but thats far beside the point. invading a part of your nation that has historically being part of you and invading another country is two completely different things. i don't think any koreans at that point in time believes the two states crap. but wateva. | ||
|
africanboy
Korea (South)453 Posts
On October 07 2006 15:00 haduken wrote: China wont save their ass this time. why don`t u go to n,korea and kick north korean top`s ass chinese are allowed to go n.korea if they have permission | ||
|
Dametri
United States726 Posts
On October 07 2006 23:37 africanboy wrote: [removed quote within quote] why don`t u go to n,korea and kick north korean top`s ass chinese are allowed to go n.korea if they have permission This thread was rapidly degenerating until now. Thank god for Africanboy.  | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
WhatisProtoss
Korea (South)2325 Posts
On October 07 2006 22:13 Kwark wrote: [removed quote within quote] They were two separate nations at the time. Democratic government in the south and the military elite the Soviets left behind in the north. The fact both nations had the word Korea in the name does not make it a civil war. Two separate states with a border between them and separate governments. The name of the states really isn't an issue, it was still an invasion of one state by another. Actually, it's not the fact that the only relation the two nations had with each other was the "Korea" in their names. They used to be the same part of an empire. No matter what people say, North and South Koreans both speak the same language and are just separated brothers. I believe North and South in the United States had separate governments too, yet it was called the American Civil War. | ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
WhatisProtoss
Korea (South)2325 Posts
On October 07 2006 19:23 Kwark wrote: Oh, and you kind of didn't bother refuting any of my attacks on you earlier so I'm gonna take that as tacit agreement that you were wrong. Wow, you are taking this all wrong. Firstly, you are being childish by saying, "OH! You didn't refute my argument! That must mean you are WRONG!!" You PROVE me wrong by giving me a strong logical argument. What you're doing is giving me crap and trying to back it up with bad logic and pointless little sarcastic insults. On October 07 2006 19:23 Kwark wrote: Ah! Length of time a political system has been around for is more important than it's effectiveness. I know you enjoy playing devils advocate but come on.... You compare modern democracy to a tribal system and say that the older one is better simply because it's been around for ten times longer. Therefore the best would be illiterate tribes hunting animals from caves, probably without fire. Okay, response #1 to which governmental system is better: Sure, we know for a fact that democracy and capitalism is somewhat "better" in the sense of economic growth (not regarding overall contentment or whatever). But, here is where you are offbase: Iraq did not WANT to be invaded and have their governmental system ruled over by another nation. It's not to the point of hunting/gathering, because the Iraqis weren't that bad off. And they aren't doing any better under a democratic system. The proof is the continual unrest that is happening in the Middle East. Here is a valid analogy: Two boys have two lunches. The stronger boy has a cool TV dinner while the weaker boy has a homepacked simple meal. The stronger boy beats the little boy up in distain for his homepacked meal and tells the weaker boy to start bringing TV dinners because it is "better" and "less crude" than a homepacked meal. Sure the TV dinner is better than a little homepacked lunch, but that doesn't mean everyone without one has to change their lifestyle and actually GET them! As for your previous points, I thought they had no substance to them, so I didn't bother answering them at all. In math, we call them "givens". We have no point in trying to prove or refute them because they are either too simple or redundant. You know you don't have a real point in shit talking everyone here who opposes you. You don't even have a clear point. What is it? That the US should bomb NKorea? All I'm saying is that the US is not as wonderful as you think and that the US should not be pushing it's weight around to all parts of the world. North Koreans are not insane or doing things without a purpose, contrary to what a lot of people here think. They see it as their last card and they are desperately hanging onto it until something better happens. Without nuclear weapons, the NKoreans would be defenseless and be without international "power". They aren't terrorists, they're just a weak nation with almost no resources and a pitiful social system trying to survive. And it's very hard to survive, since they are on the opposite side of the playing field: against the Americans. By keeping enemy nations at bay with the threat of nukes, the NKoreans can try and coerce nations like the US to stay away while trying to squeeze out any little economic support they can get. A weak man commands physical power among giants only when armed with a weapon. Otherwise, the weak man is at the mercy of the giants. The US should be more understanding. Obviously the nukes need to be stopped in North Korea. Obviously, the North Koreans are suffering and need a change of lifestyle. You just made OBVIOUS points. Who cares about the obvious when we're looking for ways to understand and solve? Yes, I admit, and have already admitted that the North Koreans aren't living well and need a change. And the US is one way to help them. Except the US is not doing that and making a public enemy out of them. | ||
|
WhatisProtoss
Korea (South)2325 Posts
| ||
| ||
