Jump to content

Kim Jong Un


linwood buddie

Recommended Posts


1 hour ago, antrin said:

Is that relevant to my original intervention or are you just interested?

Both I suppose. I am asking in good faith here. Forget North Korea as that's clearly not a socialist state.

I am not aware of any successful state built primarily on socialist principles. My thoughts are that socialist principles put the good of broad society over the individual. You can't have this without curbs on individuality and that requires a centralised control system. When power is found, people will gravitate towards it and you'll find corruption. Capitalism has lifted us out of dire poverty in the west but it has it's problems with abuse of the evironment and squandering of natural resources and IMO for those reasons, it's not sustainable in current form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 10:59 AM, GMan said:

Wishing death on people is a sin. I hope you burn in hell for eternity as punishment for your wickedness. 

As for Kim, I reckon he was a big teddy bear really. Okay, he could be a bit mischievous, but he wasnae a bad yin. May he RIP. 

It is NOT a sin to wish people dead.  I have at certain times of my life wished certain people dead and in many cases the death to be both slow and painful

 

Here is a non exhaustive list

 

My primary school teacher after first receiving the belt (but only for a day or two, until he did it again the bastard)

Adolf Hitler for turning my and every one else's lives upside down not to mention the friends and family lost.

Mussolini and Hirahito for the reason given above

All Japanese soldiers who served as prison guards during WWII

Margaret Thatcher

I wish death had visited Thomas Hamilton prior to the bastard carrying out his cowardly atrocity at Dunblane.

My fat bastard nosey moaning f**k faced neighbour two doors up, the c**t.

So to be clear I do NOT share your view that such "wishes" are sinful, in fact its a bit of a bellend statement.  The bellendness of your statement, for me at least is compounded by you then stating that you wish our fellow forum user to "burn in hell for eternity".   That was quite uncalled for, uncalled for indeed.  Least not the fact that hell does not exist.

Now by calling your fellow forum user a sinner then wishing that he "burn in hell for eternity" I have concluded that you were likely at the wind up and actually mocking religion by pointing out the ridiculous irony in scalding someone for such a wish yet wishing yourself a fate rather worse than the fate your were mocking.  So all in all it was a laugh, a bit of banter, a jovial walloper swinging and not bellendy at all.  Or was it? 

 

Only you know the true answer to that my forum friend and in a completely non religious (and as such real) way I grant you the benefit of the doubt and I heartily congratulate you on your modest wit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TediousTom said:

It is NOT a sin to wish people dead.  I have at certain times of my life wished certain people dead and in many cases the death to be both slow and painful

 

Here is a non exhaustive list

 

My primary school teacher after first receiving the belt (but only for a day or two, until he did it again the bastard)

Adolf Hitler for turning my and every one else's lives upside down not to mention the friends and family lost.

Mussolini and Hirahito for the reason given above

All Japanese soldiers who served as prison guards during WWII

Margaret Thatcher

I wish death had visited Thomas Hamilton prior to the bastard carrying out his cowardly atrocity at Dunblane.

My fat bastard nosey moaning f**k faced neighbour two doors up, the c**t.

So to be clear I do NOT share your view that such "wishes" are sinful, in fact its a bit of a bellend statement.  The bellendness of your statement, for me at least is compounded by you then stating that you wish our fellow forum user to "burn in hell for eternity".   That was quite uncalled for, uncalled for indeed.  Least not the fact that hell does not exist.

Now by calling your fellow forum user a sinner then wishing that he "burn in hell for eternity" I have concluded that you were likely at the wind up and actually mocking religion by pointing out the ridiculous irony in scalding someone for such a wish yet wishing yourself a fate rather worse than the fate your were mocking.  So all in all it was a laugh, a bit of banter, a jovial walloper swinging and not bellendy at all.  Or was it? 

 

Only you know the true answer to that my forum friend and in a completely non religious (and as such real) way I grant you the benefit of the doubt and I heartily congratulate you on your modest wit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you seen GMan's posts? I took it to be a 'joke', given that he condemned a poster on here to eternity in hell for making a comment on an internet forum, yet hoped Kim Jong Un would rest in peace, despite the countless atrocities he has committed. 

669718771_nkoreastamp.jpg.e6016f93b1fd3253bd0234da0214aa8c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TediousTom said:

It is NOT a sin to wish people dead.  I have at certain times of my life wished certain people dead and in many cases the death to be both slow and painful

 

Here is a non exhaustive list

 

My primary school teacher after first receiving the belt (but only for a day or two, until he did it again the bastard)

Adolf Hitler for turning my and every one else's lives upside down not to mention the friends and family lost.

Mussolini and Hirahito for the reason given above

All Japanese soldiers who served as prison guards during WWII

Margaret Thatcher

I wish death had visited Thomas Hamilton prior to the bastard carrying out his cowardly atrocity at Dunblane.

My fat bastard nosey moaning f**k faced neighbour two doors up, the c**t.

So to be clear I do NOT share your view that such "wishes" are sinful, in fact its a bit of a bellend statement.  The bellendness of your statement, for me at least is compounded by you then stating that you wish our fellow forum user to "burn in hell for eternity".   That was quite uncalled for, uncalled for indeed.  Least not the fact that hell does not exist.

Now by calling your fellow forum user a sinner then wishing that he "burn in hell for eternity" I have concluded that you were likely at the wind up and actually mocking religion by pointing out the ridiculous irony in scalding someone for such a wish yet wishing yourself a fate rather worse than the fate your were mocking.  So all in all it was a laugh, a bit of banter, a jovial walloper swinging and not bellendy at all.  Or was it? 

 

Only you know the true answer to that my forum friend and in a completely non religious (and as such real) way I grant you the benefit of the doubt and I heartily congratulate you on your modest wit. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see why you're known as Tedious Tom, but I don't think it does you justice. I propose you change your name to Tedious Tom the Tiresome 'tard! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS
Both I suppose. I am asking in good faith here. Forget North Korea as that's clearly not a socialist state.
I am not aware of any successful state built primarily on socialist principles. My thoughts are that socialist principles put the good of broad society over the individual. You can't have this without curbs on individuality and that requires a centralised control system. When power is found, people will gravitate towards it and you'll find corruption. Capitalism has lifted us out of dire poverty in the west but it has it's problems with abuse of the evironment and squandering of natural resources and IMO for those reasons, it's not sustainable in current form.
Personally, I take the view that any socialist state is attempting to be successful in a capitalist world and the most powerful countries, particularly the USA but also their allies have always operated a policy of undermining any country they deemed socialist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Both I suppose. I am asking in good faith here. Forget North Korea as that's clearly not a socialist state.

I am not aware of any successful state built primarily on socialist principles. My thoughts are that socialist principles put the good of broad society over the individual. You can't have this without curbs on individuality and that requires a centralised control system. When power is found, people will gravitate towards it and you'll find corruption. Capitalism has lifted us out of dire poverty in the west but it has it's problems with abuse of the evironment and squandering of natural resources and IMO for those reasons, it's not sustainable in current form.

In good faith, I'll offer my response, inadequate as I know it'll be.

As you may fear, a lot depends on what is meant by 'socialism', 'socialist principles' and what is meant by 'success'.

It could be said that there has been no successful Socialist state built on 'socialist principles' - as the states called 'socialist' have mostly all been State Socialism, imposed on the populace from above.  true socialist principles suggest that socialism will arise when the people at the grass roots (all of the people not simply the managers of a State) agree that the fruits of their toil should be shared so that no one is left behind or suffering.  Imposing a system seldom succeeds.

Although, USSR and Venezuela tried their best - but it could be argued there, that having to compete against the overbearing forces of an already entrenched world of Capitalism (forgetting the USSR struggles against Fascism…) was already to big a task for a nascent state.  Venezuela was a one-trick pony that didn't follow the Scandi model and diversify/store up its oil wealth for rainier days.

The Russian Empire was a biggie, a hand down from the Czars, facing unimaginable transformation from peasantry to a space power and always under attack by established nations.  It failed.  But many countries and all empires do eventually fail - so why anyone would think that operating with a socialist outlook should be the sole reason for not being "a successful state" is a strangely selective agenda with which to start.   Look at the bigger picture and there are few if any successful states- of any political shade.

 

China could be our best example for a successful socialist state.  It IS very successful.  It has an amazingly long history - millenia! -  of being innovative and successful in many areas.  I am not a fan of its totalitarianism, but the current system (labelled socialist by right wing idiots) does produce a lot of benefits for millions of its people - and has been able too buy many of the top good bits of western states.  Is that success?  Does that make Capitalist countries look like relative failures.

 

Bored yet?  It's the only way I can answer...   it IS  a huge question.  I am not sure why you wanted MY answer.  Google could have helped.  Luckily the usual forum trash won't have read more  than two sentences.  :)

(a wee emoji to placate them)

You could say that the UK (and many others in Europe) are successful socialist states in that even the right wing Tory f**kpigs as some people call them - claims to believe in our National Health System and many aspects of community welfare - even though they are regularly guilty of underfunding them.  It is an ethos that prevails in many European countries.  Righting all wrongs, levelling out all inequalities, doing the right thing by others (almost Christian....) seems to be the European commonweal.

You could say that Norway and other Scandinavian countries are pretty close to it - heading that way...

Canadians make a fair claim that their systems are based on socialism (and Christianity.... again.)  It is successful. For now.  Living cheek by jowl with its Ugly Sister...

Cuba?  Everyone has enough to eat, everyone has education and equal opportunity - though opportunity might not be huge from our pov.  Every Cuban can see, across the water, the obscene wealth of westerners and they'll all know that USA has a huge underclass which is over-represented in US prisons - the USA - NOT built on 'socialist principles' - is that a capitalist success story for a vast number of its inhabitants?.

My simple answer I suppose would be that we're on our way to living under the benign canopy of 'socialist principles'.  That is all.  

Capitalism has been a useful phase which has helped lift a lot of people throughout the world out of starvation and disease and poverty and yet, and yet...  the entities, the companies, the stockholders, hedge funds that now run our economies are no longer simple humans but machines to extract profit without limits and with no recourse to social constraints.  No need to reinvest profits into the societies from which it has been extracted...

But Capitalism as a phase is not the be-all and end-all of history.  It has been a useful phase.   We will move on.

 

Current unrestricted Capitalism  is doing humanity less and less good turns. I've always appreciated good ole USA Antitrust laws.  I think they have been slow in getting to grips with www exploitation and monopolising of markets, but they'll get there - for the good of the consumer.

Have there ever been any successful Capitalist countries?  Yes, for a while, in their time. and it is/would be the same for socialist states.   All things must pass. 

I aspire to a socialist state as I have more than enough to enjoy life with.  I am not greedy and I didn't get my life all on my own - society and socialism were key in my growth and education, health and welfare -of me and my family.  I wish that basic bringing up for myriad others.   A well-organised state should care for all its members.  It is no unimaginable aspiration for any decent member of the human race to have a decent shot at  life.

I am optimistic. You may suggest far too optimistic?  

Every human,  every scientist takes the same rashly optimistic steps daily, to find out what works, what doesn't, what is the best way forward.  Wherever there are flaws (and there are many) in our society I would like them repaired.  Despite a current back step or two, I believe in a better future for most people.  I don't think that will come from people who do not want to share the fruits that their place of birth has bought them.  I want change for the good of ALL, because none of us are innately better than everyone else.

I would deny that 'socialist principles' robs anyone of individuality.  At least no more than living under any other structure of government/community that exists on this planet.

I would be happy to live in a state built on 'socialist principles'. 

(then again - what IS socialism?  I tried..  D-   )

 

 

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I found that a very long post by forum standards.

And then I found I had a 10 minute wait, so all good.

It's a very long post but it's well considered and balanced IMO. I'll reply to it later as it deserves more than a fleeting response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GMan said:

I see why you're known as Tedious Tom, but I don't think it does you justice. I propose you change your name to Tedious Tom the Tiresome 'tard:)

Ah so you were being a bellend.  Forgive me for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

I hereby withdraw the benefit given over the doubt, withdraw the benefit given over the doubt indeed.

Edited by TediousTom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In good faith, I'll offer my response, inadequate as I know it'll be.

As you may fear, a lot depends on what is meant by 'socialism', 'socialist principles' and what is meant by 'success'.

It could be said that there has been no successful Socialist state built on 'socialist principles' - as the states called 'socialist' have mostly all been State Socialism, imposed on the populace from above.  true socialist principles suggest that socialism will arise when the people at the grass roots (all of the people not simply the managers of a State) agree that the fruits of their toil should be shared so that no one is left behind or suffering.  Imposing a system seldom succeeds.

Although, USSR and Venezuela tried their best - but it could be argued there, that having to compete against the overbearing forces of an already entrenched world of Capitalism (forgetting the USSR struggles against Fascism…) was already to big a task for a nascent state.  Venezuela was a one-trick pony that didn't follow the Scandi model and diversify/store up its oil wealth for rainier days.

The Russian Empire was a biggie, a hand down from the Czars, facing unimaginable transformation from peasantry to a space power and always under attack by established nations.  It failed.  But many countries and all empires do eventually fail - so why anyone would think that operating with a socialist outlook should be the sole reason for not being "a successful state" is a strangely selective agenda with which to start.   Look at the bigger picture and there are few if any successful states- of any political shade.

 

China could be our best example for a successful socialist state.  It IS very successful.  It has an amazingly long history - millenia! -  of being innovative and successful in many areas.  I am not a fan of its totalitarianism, but the current system (labelled socialist by right wing idiots) does produce a lot of benefits for millions of its people - and has been able too buy many of the top good bits of western states.  Is that success?  Does that make Capitalist countries look like relative failures.

 

Bored yet?  It's the only way I can answer...   it IS  a huge question.  I am not sure why you wanted MY answer.  Google could have helped.  Luckily the usual forum trash won't have read more  than two sentences.  [emoji4]

(a wee emoji to placate them)

You could say that the UK (and many others in Europe) are successful socialist states in that even the right wing Tory f**kpigs as some people call them - claims to believe in our National Health System and many aspects of community welfare - even though they are regularly guilty of underfunding them.  It is an ethos that prevails in many European countries.  Righting all wrongs, levelling out all inequalities, doing the right thing by others (almost Christian....) seems to be the European commonweal.

You could say that Norway and other Scandinavian countries are pretty close to it - heading that way...

Canadians make a fair claim that their systems are based on socialism (and Christianity.... again.)  It is successful. For now.  Living cheek by jowl with its Ugly Sister...

Cuba?  Everyone has enough to eat, everyone has education and equal opportunity - though opportunity might not be huge from our pov.  Every Cuban can see, across the water, the obscene wealth of westerners and they'll all know that USA has a huge underclass which is over-represented in US prisons - the USA - NOT built on 'socialist principles' - is that a capitalist success story for a vast number of its inhabitants?.

My simple answer I suppose would be that we're on our way to living under the benign canopy of 'socialist principles'.  That is all.  

Capitalism has been a useful phase which has helped lift a lot of people throughout the world out of starvation and disease and poverty and yet, and yet...  the entities, the companies, the stockholders, hedge funds that now run our economies are no longer simple humans but machines to extract profit without limits and with no recourse to social constraints.  No need to reinvest profits into the societies from which it has been extracted...

But Capitalism as a phase is not the be-all and end-all of history.  It has been a useful phase.   We will move on.

 

Current unrestricted Capitalism  is doing humanity less and less good turns. I've always appreciated good ole USA Antitrust laws.  I think they have been slow in getting to grips with www exploitation and monopolising of markets, but they'll get there - for the good of the consumer.

Have there ever been any successful Capitalist countries?  Yes, for a while, in their time. and it is/would be the same for socialist states.   All things must pass. 

I aspire to a socialist state as I have more than enough to enjoy life with.  I am not greedy and I didn't get my life all on my own - society and socialism were key in my growth and education, health and welfare -of me and my family.  I wish that basic bringing up for myriad others.   A well-organised state should care for all its members.  It is no unimaginable aspiration for any decent member of the human race to have a decent shot at  life.

I am optimistic. You may suggest far too optimistic?  

Every human,  every scientist takes the same rashly optimistic steps daily, to find out what works, what doesn't, what is the best way forward.  Wherever there are flaws (and there are many) in our society I would like them repaired.  Despite a current back step or two, I believe in a better future for most people.  I don't think that will come from people who do not want to share the fruits that their place of birth has bought them.  I want change for the good of ALL, because none of us are innately better than everyone else.

I would deny that 'socialist principles' robs anyone of individuality.  At least no more than living under any other structure of government/community that exists on this planet.

I would be happy to live in a state built on 'socialist principles'. 

(then again - what IS socialism?  I tried..  D-   )

 

 

 

The first two bits of the last para's easy (in my head, anyway):

 

No-one homeless;

No-one hungry;

Equal access for all to education;

Equal access for all for health services.

 

How we achieve that and measure the success is the really hard bit...

 

 

 

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...