Ashley Olsen Spotted Sporting $39,000 Backpack By The Row

Started by garbon, July 27, 2011, 05:17:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Slargos

That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.

Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?

Martinus

Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:47:32 AM
That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.

Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?

I'm sure 19th century Sweden is an apt analogy for 21st century Somalia, but I do not immediately see it. Perhaps you can enlighten me, Slargos?

Slargos

Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:56:32 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:47:32 AM
That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.

Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?

I'm sure 19th century Sweden is an apt analogy for 21st century Somalia, but I do not immediately see it. Perhaps you can enlighten me, Slargos?

You make the blanket statement, you lie on the filthy bed.

Martinus

Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:59:25 AM
You make the blanket statement, you lie on the filthy bed.
I thought you considered grumbler to be an idiot when he argues the way you just did.

Slargos

Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 06:01:05 AM
Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:59:25 AM
You make the blanket statement, you lie on the filthy bed.
I thought you considered grumbler to be an idiot when he argues the way you just did.

When you turn around a causal relationship like a goddamned fucktard, there's every excuse.

HVC

The way i see it poverty on its own doesn't create extremism. 19th century sweden sucked? guess what, 19th centaury anywhere sucked. it's poverty in contrast to others wealth (or apparent wealth) that pisses everyone off. starving somali sees a western movie or commercial, or any media really, and it looks like everyone is loaded. then he gets pissed. French revolution same shit. poor can't eat, rish building guilded palaces, heads come off. You can find other examples.

That's not to say that's the only cause of extremism, but Marti isn't way off in his view. Still doubt he'll give money to the poor somali's to stop their plight and segue into extremism.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

Siege

Quote from: Martinus on July 29, 2011, 05:22:20 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 28, 2011, 07:11:44 PM
= =

The smartest thing you have said (well, put in pictures) in ages. Crushing poverty and hunger breeds extremism.

You do realize how retarded you sound, right?

Terrorists are middle and upper class.
The lowest classes are terrorists only if palestinians.
Other muslim lower classes have little if any participation in terrorist activities.
They are too poor to worry about ideology.
Like Karl Marx said, "a man have to eat and dress, then think of communism".



"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"


Razgovory

Quote from: Slargos on July 29, 2011, 05:47:32 AM
That's funny. Sweden had crushing hunger and poverty in the 19th century, yet I must've completely missed the extremism that resulted from it.

Might be a failure of my meager education, however, I will admit.

Perhaps you can enlighten me, Martinus?

Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism?  Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared.  Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

grumbler

Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 28, 2011, 02:13:54 PM

"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.

Exactly! Thank you.
Well, at least we found someone who can swallow Marti's absurd analogies!  :lol:
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Drakken

Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism?  Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared.  Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?

Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.

Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.

Malthus

Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism?  Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared.  Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?

Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.

Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.

One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.

The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

The Brain

Women want me. Men want to be with me.

HVC

Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism?  Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared.  Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?

Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.

Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.

One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.

The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.
Still lives in the dumb Minnesotan stereotype.
Being lazy is bad; unless you still get what you want, then it's called "patience".
Hubris must be punished. Severely.

The Brain

Quote from: Malthus on August 04, 2011, 10:31:55 AM
Quote from: Drakken on August 04, 2011, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 31, 2011, 06:11:52 PM
Would anyone have even noticed if Sweden had extremism?  Maybe it had extremism, but in the real world nobody noticed or cared.  Didn't half the country break away and become Norway in 1905 or something?

Even that was fairly benign, it was more of a divorce than a secession. Besides, odds are Sweden would have lost a Reconquest war with Norway.

Swedes who were starving (and no, they weren't really starving to death, just witnessing a long series of drought in a backward society) had one big neon-beaming option - leaving for America, where settlers were wanted and invited. Somalian starvers, not so much. No one wants colonies of flies in their backyards, and migrating somewhere else in Africa only means a continuation of starvation in the desert.

One interesting bit of trivia is that in the late 19th/early 20th century in North America, Swedes were discriminated against on the basis of their alleged stupidity. You can see references to this in the short stories of Jack London and poetry of Robert Service.

The "Dumb Swede" was a stock character.

We worked hard though. I'm like an anti-Swede.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

DGuller

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 28, 2011, 12:05:37 PM
Quote from: Pat on July 28, 2011, 11:52:52 AM
I don't mind paying high taxes. I'm a selfish bastard but I don't mind limiting my own wealth as long as everyone else does the same.

I have never understood this logic.  Michael Moore wants sick people to have cheap health care.  Warren Buffet wants teachers to be paid more.  Why don't they write a check?  If the basic premise is correct, that these outcomes are morally superior, then why do they require the coerced participation of other people?
And I never understood the logic you employ.  Both Moore and Buffett are making arguments about how a system should be set up, not about what people should do voluntarily.  Systems require coercion.  Your argument is pretty much the same as the argument that goes like "Think taxes should be higher?  Why don't you donate to the Treasury?"