Jump to content

Favorite Quotations


armjan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.

 

George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Armenian Nation should learn NOT learn from there history, but leave a history in which comming ganarations could benefit from it.

 

me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazi oppression...

 

First they came for the Communists,

but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing.

Then they came for the Social Democrats,

but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing.

Then came the trade unionists,

but I was not a trade unionist.

And then they came for the Jews,

but I was not a Jew, so I did little.

Then when they came for me,

there was no one left to stand up for me.

 

-Pastor Martin Niemoller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Some men see things as they are and say, "Why?" I dream of things that never were and say, "Why not?"

 

George Bernard Shaw

 

(frequently attributed to Robert F. (Bobby) Kennedy, who used it in a speech which his brother, Edward F. (Teddy) Kennedy quoted at RFK's funeral)

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Have you read Man and Superman? A very marvelous book indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and it's up to him and only him (through his reasoning mind) to decide which he wants to be.

  -  Ayn Rand

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I'll see your Rand, and raise you a Nietzsche.

 

There is an old illusion, which is called good and evil. So far the wheel of this illusion has revolved around soothsayers and stargazers. Once man believed in soothsayers and stargazers, and therefore believed: "All is destiny: you ought to, for you must". Then man again mistrusted all soothsayers and stargazers, and therefore believed: "All is freedom: you can, for you will".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll see your Rand, and raise you a Nietzsche.

 

There is an old illusion, which is called good and evil. So far the wheel of this illusion has revolved around soothsayers and stargazers. Once man believed in soothsayers and stargazers, and therefore believed: "All is destiny: you ought to, for you must". Then man again mistrusted all soothsayers and stargazers, and therefore believed: "All is freedom: you can, for you will".

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well raised, well raised. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is incorrect to classify the revolt of the Negro as simply a radical conflict of black against white or as a purely American problem. Rather, we are today seeing a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, the exploited against the exploiter." -Malcolm X

 

Food for thought in general....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, I have always had the most respect for Malcolm X and his ideas, because I happen to agree with him. He was far more better and intelligent than the fraud of Martin Luther King. After reading Malcom X I understood why one of my favorite thinkers, Murray Rothbard preferred him to King. Some quotes from Malcom X:

 

"It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."

 

--------

 

"Well, you - heh! -- if a criminal comes around your house with his gun, brother, just because he's got a gun and he's robbing your house, brother, and he's a robber, it doesn't make you a robber because you grab your gun and run him out. No, see, the man is using some tricky logic on you."

 

--------

 

"If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it is wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it is wrong for America to draft us, and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country."

 

--------

 

"Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the Constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you'd be within your rights - I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job. That's all."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and it's up to him and only him (through his reasoning mind) to decide which he wants to be.

  -  Ayn Rand

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

If Ayn Rand were alive today she would be a neo-conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her ideas are (ab)used as a pretense by neocons to justify their spread of "freedom and democracy". Though she would greatly oppose their methods, she wouldn't argue againtst the final end result and it would be a beneficial give-and-take for both sides (if it helps create a conducive environment for individual rights).

 

Here is an example of a slippery slope argument that can be readily abused by neocons:

 

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

 

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.

 

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

 

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called "Free World" consists of various "mixed economies," it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All "mixed economies" are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule — executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses — the nationalization or expropriation of private property — and censorship. Any country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

 

Neocons would emphasize the first paragraph, but overlook the rest. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her ideas are (ab)used as a pretense by neocons to justify their spread of "freedom and democracy". Though she would greatly oppose their methods, she wouldn't argue againtst the final end result and it would be a beneficial give-and-take for both sides (if it helps create a conducive environment for individual rights).

 

Here is an example of a slippery slope argument that can be readily abused by neocons:

Neocons would emphasize the first paragraph, but overlook the rest.  :)

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

As unfortunately we(USA as a quasi-military-conglomerate) already do much of what is discussed in this paragraph vis-a-vis the American military. The irony is that we don't necessarily start up another evil regime, but many times abandon the countries we've freed and they struggle to get back on their feet because the "liberation" isn't complete just at the disposal of the rulers, but with the establishment of a working govermental system, post war. And the help of the "liberators" is needed then just as much as it was to free the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We think very little of time present; we anticipate the future, as being too slow, and with a view to hasten it onward, we recall the past to stay it as too swiftly gone. We are so thoughtless, that we thus wander through the hours which are not here, regardless only of the moment that is actually our own.

 

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...