Ableton Forum

Funk N. Furter wrote:Nationalisation is not the same as initiating violence.

Of course it is. Essentially, it is grand-scale theft, with the victims held at gun point. Theft committed for the "greater good" is still theft, and still violent.

@ Funk N.

The people also voted Hitler into power after he'd published Mein Kampf. By your logic, gasing the Jews wasn't violent either, although it was violent for the Jews to try to avoid capture. Your argument is ridiculous.

Theft is defined as taking someone's property without their consent. This consent must come from the owner, not the people. There's no way around this. If you want to confiscate companies and private mansions, you're promoting violence. Now be a big boy and fess up.

Take note Scotty, this is yet another fundamental difference between Funky's style and my own—I assume my beliefs.

Funk N. assumes his arse.

Steve Ballmer wrote:@ Funk N.

The people also voted Hitler into power after he'd published Mein Kampf. By your logic, gasing the Jews wasn't violent either, although it was violent for the Jews to try to avoid capture. Your argument is ridiculous.

Theft is defined as taking someone's property without their consent. This consent must come from the owner, not the people. There's no way around this. If you want to confiscate companies and private mansions, you're promoting violence. Now be a big boy and fess up.

Take note Scotty, this is yet another fundamental difference between Funky's style and my own—I assume my beliefs.

Funk N. assumes his arse.

Steve Ballmer wrote:@ Funk N.

The people also voted Hitler into power after he'd published Mein Kampf. By your logic, gasing the Jews wasn't violent either, although it was violent for the Jews to try to avoid capture. Your argument is ridiculous.

Theft is defined as taking someone's property without their consent. This consent must come from the owner, not the people. There's no way around this. If you want to confiscate companies and private mansions, you're promoting violence. Now be a big boy and fess up.

Take note Scotty, this is yet another fundamental difference between Funky's style and my own—I assume my beliefs.

Funk N. assumes his arse.

Then you also assume that I beweeve you know what the frick you're talking about. If someone steals my car and sells it to you, then it's still(not steal) my car. If someone steals my labour, i.e slavery, and sells the fruits of that labour to you, then who is the true owner? Your sense of ownership assumes a clean title history. Since you are so righteously opposed to confiscation and theft, then how do you assure the sanctity of the products you purchase. Also, in my claim that you were each half-stupid, there was no claim made that your respective levels of stupidity were directly proportional to the other, so a decrease in your level of stupidity would not correlate to a decrease in funkler's level of stupidity. I never said you would remain equally stupid. Your stupidity levels are variable-as as are ours.

EDIT: Actually, by claiming you two were exactly the same, I do believe I tied your levels of stupidity together. See, I'm stoopid for if I weren't I would have realized that before whacking off. But I'm stoopid, Steve, really, really stoopid.

You raise an interesting point that nobody has ever raised before. Seriously. If you'd care to reformulate it in a way that's not stoopoooopid, I'd be happy to answer you.

Funk N. Furter wrote:I never said it was easy. You can't start with an idea that you pulled out of your arse, you have to start with what is already in existence.

Well may I suggest you put together a little committee to study the question, so that hopefully in five or six years regular techno production may resume. Or at least that some of us may get our names onto the Party's Basic Synth Gear waiting list.

Steve Ballmer wrote:You raise an interesting point that nobody has ever raised before. Seriously. If you'd care to reformulate it in a way that's not stoopoooopid, I'd be happy to answer you.

That's the best I can do. Go with it or move on to a more enticing sandbox.

scott nathaniel wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:You raise an interesting point that nobody has ever raised before. Seriously. If you'd care to reformulate it in a way that's not stoopoooopid, I'd be happy to answer you.

That's the best I can do. Go with it or move on to a more enticing sandbox.

Pity. You seemed fun.

Steve Ballmer wrote:

scott nathaniel wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:You raise an interesting point that nobody has ever raised before. Seriously. If you'd care to reformulate it in a way that's not stoopoooopid, I'd be happy to answer you.

That's the best I can do. Go with it or move on to a more enticing sandbox.

Pity. You seemed fun.

I know, but hey-
We'll always have Paris!

Funk N. Furter wrote: If all blood is the same, then someone who kills a bad person to save an innocent child is the same as someone who kidnaps and murders children. That makes a lot of sense.

The most extreme example isn't the norm. Think of reasons for violence like black, white, and all the hundreds of shades of grey in between. An organized revolution isn't capable in any way of extracting justice that only takes out the blackest crime against it. We have seen this in action over and over and over again.
The only way for change at this point is consensus, and a change in the way we think about society in general. IMO the next major change in thinking about society will happen from global disasters, either meteorites or climate change. Something that unifies all of us against a common threat.

Not from the hatred of centralized planning or the love of it.

Machinesworking wrote:Something that unifies all of us against a common threat.

Not from the hatred of centralized planning or the love of it.

That.

The world we live in is shrinking in so many ways as it pertains to communication and access to things that were once... a world away.

Because of humanity's need for an enemy the only logical solution is a common enemy... one that doesn't share the same fundamental needs and wants. There is no difference in what a child wants who is any color or of any "class". The hatred and frustration we feel always boils down to an us vs. them mentality, but is only focused on what we are taught to perceive and that is always in the direction of other human beings. When we all perceive the same threat then we can focus our anger and resentments in a direction that isn't self destructive to our species.

@ Funk N.

1. "In a rigged election."

Rigged or not, that's beside the point. You're suggesting that had Hitler's election not been rigged, then gassing Jews would have been fine. In essence, you're agreeing with my argument. Which is truly hilarious.

2. "Most of the big companies in the UK were effectively nationalised during the war, and were kept nationalised until the 1980s. During this period no Jews were gassed."

So by your logic, this is a matter of precedent? In that case, you're suggesting that it would be perfectly acceptable for the Germans to reopen Auschwitz. That's not cool, man. You're being a dick.

3. "So according to you British governments of all parties were guilty of theft and violence when they nationalised the rail, water, buses, electricity, gas, oil, airlines and so on, unless all the companies were happy with it?"

Yup. As I said, I STAND BY MY BELIEFS, which means that when I say "nationalization is violence" and you ask "is nationalization violence?", I say "yes".

Anyway I'm sorry I've upset you, I'm sorry your defense has only confirmed my arguments, I'm sorry you feel cornered and no longer want to reply. This is what losing feels like, you sick anti-semetic bastard.

@ Funk N.

The problem today is central planning. If your solution will, as you say, have "just as much" central planning, then you're proposing central planning. Hence, according to you, socialism is a love for central planning.

Did you just contradict yourself again? Why yes, yes you did.