Dan

I've never encountered a similar thing, and whenever I have, people have been very closed minded about it and criticized those who DID want to talk about things openly, and said that they were not men enough, which caused the men who were ready to talk to just leave or change the topic. lol.. I don't know about people on this forum, but most of the time when you say something, even here, people make it seem like they don't want to hear it... even if it's not anything explicit.. whereas for women, it's much easier, because that is a stereotype for women anyway, whereas for men it's the opposite. i guess i'm ranting here.. so..

OK Thanks for clarifying all that, Armat.. Now can we stop re-opening this argument every time we try to close it?

I don't get it... Never mind...

Fox News, MJ? http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/dan-shakehead.gif

http://www.miniclip.com http://www.candystand.com For all of you internet freaks who like online games.

lol, that's a good price for a laptop with those specs.... but i wouldn't get a Dell... just ask my mom why.. lol

So let me guess, and tell me if I'm wrong - so by that token, what Leviticus supposedly says about homosexuality basically would not apply to people who are devout Christians? Same goes for the Sodom and Gemorrah story that is supposedly about homosexuality?

I think this applies to my mom...

lol, well, here's a joke about bathrooms: Three engineers were in the bathroom standing at the urinals. The first engineer finished and walked over to the sink to wash his hands. He then proceeded to dry his hands very carefully. He used paper towel after paper towel and ensured that every single spot of water on his hands was dried. Turning to the other two engineers, he said, "At Hewlett Packard, we are trained to be extremely thorough." The second engineer finished his task at the urinal and he proceeded to wash his hands. He used a single paper towel and made sure that he dried his hands using every available portion of the paper towel. He turned and said, "At Lockheed-Martin, not only are we trained to be extremely thorough, but we are also trained to be extremely efficient." The third engineer finished and walked straight for the door, shouting over his shoulder, "At Apple Computer, Inc. we don't pee on our hands." http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/toilet_computer.jpg http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/toilet_computer1.jpg

That's one of the biggest fallacies I've encountered in a while - it's an argumentum ad hominem (attacking the person) tu quoque. Attacking the person by saying that he/she should practice what he preaches, and that if he/she lives in the country he/she is criticizing then that means that he/she is wrong or his/her arguments are wrong... But on another note - what opportunities are you talking about? I live in a capitalist country that brings hundreds of thousands of poor people from china with the hope of attracting even more, having in mind the destruction of the communist system... are you telling me that under the immigration point system we have here in Canada, that chinese guy who comes here and becomes homeless or collapses on the government is more qualified than I am, having lived in Canada for more than 2 years, knowing the language, being literate, unlike 99% of the chinese / indians they bring here? And what freedom are you talking about? Freedom to do whatever one wants? Freedom to protest and then get charged for things one didn't do, when cops produce fake videos of you rioting? When cops arrest you for THINKING about killing yourself when the Criminal Code does not say anything about it being illegal? When you get held in a hospital for days and days, without being given the right to make a call and get legal aid? When cops call your parents even though you're not underage, and tell them that you're queer, and basically cause you to become homeless? What freedom are we talking about? .... Now tell me... What freedom is that?

Toronto: http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/snow1.jpg http://www.cs.yorku.ca/~cs213198/snow2.jpg

lol MosJan... I want Vodka too. I haven't had that stuff for ages. MMMmmmm. *drool*

Oh, I'm a big fan of Wilde, but that didn't cross my mind. I agree. lol... if there was a painting that represented total reality, it would be pointless - well for us now anyhow, due to the invention of the camera... Of course, photography can be considered an art too... so I don't know about that... I guess Wilde's view does not apply to that. Hmm, or maybe he just didn't consider photography an art, as it wasn't as developed as it is today. But a good post anyway. Thanks for reminding me of Wilde. He's great. lol

Like I said, I believe it all depends on how you view it and where you view it from; i.e. if you're viewing it from the view of leaders of capitalism, big companies, etc., then yeah, I agree that it's not a failing system. But if you view it from the common person's viewpoint and seeing the number of homeless people in a supposedly advanced country, it's a good pointer to something wrong in society... More often than not, it is society that is to be held responsible for the condition of the poor. People have a wrong idea about homeless people - my mother, for example, thinks that homeless people are homeless by choice, even though the government offered them homes, but they refused, because they just like lying there on the streets in the freezing cold............... Do you think any sane person would prefer that to having liveable conditions? In order for status to be earned, there must be the opportunity. Creating opportunities is not as easy as you think. Creating opportunities in a capitalistic society is pretty hard. The poster family that lifted itself from poverty and is now living in a house and can support itself is just the media propaganda of capitalism, unfortunately... at least in my opinion. Yes, you may be right, but there is a big difference between success and being able to get the basics to survive... Yeah, some people might not have huge dreams of success, but I think everyone, by virtue of their own human nature and needs, is motivated to do something to at least keep on living. That's how people are. Or at least sane people. Of course, there is a small group of stupidly proud people who absolutely refuse to work even if they might die of hunger. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the majority of people who had no choice but to be homeless.

Sip, how would a worker's democracy mean sitting and doing nothing and putting your thumb up your wherever? The worker's utopia is not to be lazy and get paid for it, it's to be equally paid for equal jobs. Of course, selling food is incomparable to building houses, and the pay would have to be higher, but that's what is equal anyhow. We're not talking about equal pay for people who do unequal amount/quality of work. For more on that, read Sir Thomas More's Utopia, a great satirical book about that and other related issues. Depends on where you view that success from. If you're talking about success from the viewpoint of the capitalist boss, then of course. If you're viewing it from the viewpoint of the homeless, then I don't think it's successful at all. It may be considered a success in that it may be more productive than the system I am talking about, but for whom is it productive? For the leaders only. And don't even tell me that in capitalist societies, you work, you get paid. There's no such thing as that. There are a lot of people who are not lazy, who are qualified, but who are not given the chance or the job to be able to support themselves. Do you truly believe that all homeless people are lazy bums who CHOSE to live on the streets or in shelters instead of having a house or apartment, taking the bus to work every day, and having a bread to eat every day, even if that would mean busting their butt trying to make ends meet? Why not? I say they're comparable. If I am going to advocate a system of society, I prefer to support a system that is poor but equally poor, rather than a system that is poor but unfairly so. Shahumyan - successful to those who don't care about the workers or even those who don't hold jobs. That's what capitalism is all about. It's an almost practical version of the survival of the fittest, except that the fittest is not the qualified person, but the one with more connections... The only reason communism did not survive was because it was applied incorrectly. Stalin is not what communism is all about. He abused the system for his own purposes, exactly the opposite of what real communism preaches. Here is what Trotsky said in his "If America Should Go Communist": There may be no worker's paradise, but there is no democratic paradise either; and if you think there is, then you are seriously delusional. However, I'd say that Cuba is as close as we have come to worker's paradise. And please, don't even start with "how about the thousands of Cubans fleeing to Florida?", because they are a small number of people who don't care about their own country or anything else except their own selfish interests. Proof of that is, when you leave your country and don't work to make it a better place, and instead cross over to your enemy's country and then say that at the slightest opportunity when Castro dies and hopefully Cuba "opens up" to capitalism, you will go there and stay there and work, then that's just pure selfish interest, truly capitalistic. And well, I don't think anyone who hasn't fought for his country against greedy invaders like the U.$ (and yes, U$A is greedy for land and colonization and industrialization) has any right to go back and witness the supposedly good days of it. But that's just my opinion. You can't expect others to fight and die for your country while you are out there talking against your own leader, and then expect your own country and people to welcome you with open arms. That is distasteful, base, and really f***ed up. And to see more about the dangers of capitalism and abuse of industrialization, read Emile Zola's Germinal. And no, I am not bookish. My personal opinions do not stem from books, but rather from my own judgements of those books and the realities they represent.

MJ, you still haven't explained what you mean by "pathetic misrepresentation." If there is a misrepresentation, then there must be a true version of it too. What is it? Enlighten us..

that's pretty good, in my opinion. what was the score for the loss? Was it a huge loss or just a 1 goal loss?

let me ask you something... do you like arguing semantics or what? .... yes... for your entertainment, here it is: -"It is not social consciousness that determines social being, but social being that determines social consciousness." -"The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of the development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." Marxism is the theory of the working class as a whole, regardless of nationality. It's a theory of the resistance of the proletariat to capitalism and all the struggles that are involved in that.. It aspires to a classless society through the formation of an "international" class if you can call it that... Edited by Sasun

Well, because contemporary interpretations differ. But he was a Marxist in the sense that he believed in his theories, which were the product of his brain... that makes him a Marxist, does it not? Another good book on Communism / Marxism, etc. is George Orwell's Animal Farm. Edit note: And another interesting link: http://www.marxists.org/ Actually, Marx was a Communist in the earliest sense of the word. He, along with Engels, wrote the Communist Manifesto.

Vava, he makes no sense in saying that there are bad artists and good artists w.r.t beauty of art. Who's the ultimate authority on art? Fact is, beauty depends on taste, and taste is not universal or right or wrong. It is just personal. He claimed that Dali was a lesser artist by virtue of fact - <<< that is just HIS opinion, don't you think? I don't think it's a fact. I think there are many scholars of art who believe that Dali was a great artist, and who see real feelings in his paintings... OK, so he's ruling out the fact that I may know as much as he does about art by saying that I may be among the ranks of novices who like Dali for his superb technical painting... And believe it or not, he does not even know me... Talk about generalization and pretentiousness. Just take a look at the "New Armenians in U.S." thread in the Diaspora forum. Moreover, he could NOT prove his point to me about the quantitative measurement of the quality of a work of art. Like I said, his claims are only that - claims - his personal beliefs, and if he can't prove that there is a universal truth of beauty, then I have proven that he is wrong in saying that there are good and BAD artists. The good and bad of an artist is determined by how many tastes it appeals to. Taste is not a measure of beauty in REALITY, because it is variable. There is no connection between the majority of taste and the correctness of the critique of the artwork. I respect his views about Dali. He's free to dislike his art and to rule it out as a higher form of art or whatever, but when he accuses me of generalization and pretentiousness in another forum and practices the same, then that becomes a problem... If he is a professional in art appreciation, then by all means, he can go ahead and prove me wrong in my arguments against his claims. That is your opinion - that does not make you right. You are making it sound like it's a fact.

Well, I never said he wasn't a communist either. I just said he was a Marxist, which I think is true.

Ok, now I am dumb. Great. Your next insult? Yes, they are. That I KNOW. But each requires a different kind of skill. A "good" violin player (as you want to call them) might not be able to be play the piano (note: by that I mean the technical part, not the creative/beauty part), and vice versa. They are not comparable. Yes, but someone who plays a musical instrument might not be able to paint (note: talking about technical things, not creativity). Opps, here comes another one of your "insults." Oh, here comes another one. So your final point was? You clearly are trying to avoid answering the question, and I am going to assume that you don't know how to judge the quality of a work of art quantitatively. I don't think anyone who has a good argument and knows he/she is right would back away just cos the other person is a "novice." I'm going to bed, after having wasted my time in proving that your arguments are fallacious/unbased and your attacks only serve to prove that.

I am assuming that what America-Hye meant was something to the effect of: Leviticus prescribing death by stoning for cursing the name of one's parents, etc. I may be wrong. I'm just trying to guess what America-Hye had in mind.

You are still attacking me. Ankleren ches hasgenar? Your comparison is flawed. How is playing the violin comparable to playing the piano, and how are those two comparable to painting? Moreover, you said nothing about the quality of the brush touches on the canvas. Your comparison can apply to that, and ONLY that. What we're talking about (I'm getting the impression that I'm talking to a wall, as you keep telling me the same thing over and over again...) is the artistic quality, i.e. beauty and creativity. What we're talking about is intellectualism vs. beauty in itself. We were NOT talking about how bad Dali's canvas or paint was. Maybe we're in different worlds and different spheres. Or maybe, just maybe, you are so confused about what we ARE talking about, really... you mentioned everything, but you still haven't replied to my questions, or provided a defence to your position of assuming that your opinions are God-given truths. Yes, I suppose I'm an amateur, because I don't agree with YOU, the ultimate authority on painting... Let me tell you something - if you hadn't called foul play just cos I disagreed with you, or just cos my taste in art does not coincide with yours, this argument wouldn't have ensued. And if people didn't abuse those words so frequently (amateur, racist, homophobe, sexist, anti-Semite), the world wouldn't have been numb to them at this point, and it would've saved everyone the trouble of fighting with one another. How do you know? That is what the majority believes, but that's not an absolute truth. Bach is highly overrated. His circumstances and surroundings might have accounted for his success, but his success and fame do not mean that he was better than his contemporaries or current composers for that matter.. OK, mr./mrs know-it-all, whichever you may be. so enlighten me - how do you measure the quality of art quantitatively? You just contradicted yourself. You said that "There is a quantities measure about bad and great Art." If quantitative measurement is not scientific, I don't know what IS...

Your point is, Sip? Yeah, I make sketches... Just because I don't show them doesn't mean I don't know about art. And just because I might draw/paint doesn't mean that I'm always right in debating about the factuality of beauty.. He may know a lot about Surrealism and other artistic movements, but I don't think that qualifies him to tell me that Dali's art is admired only by novices, not by those who know what REAL art is... at least that's what he implied... unless he tells me he meant otherwise.