Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
WyntrHeart
they/them pronouns please
  • 21
  • from Redneck Hell
  • Used to be called R3B3LCAUSE
  • Member since Jul 12th 2012
Last Activity
  • I just realized what happened to you. Good luck in there, buddy. When you get back out, I'll be here (I usually am).

    Posted by tallgeese

  • What makes me mad is that members are characterising this as an issue with Muslims. It is not. It is an issue with under-developed nations, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. I mean, do you remember the big stories about the rape cases in India about a year ago? A Hindu (not Muslim) nation where many men think it is acceptable for women to be raped in order to fulfill the sexual desires of men. This is a common attitude across the under-developed world and to a lesser extent the developed world. The United States, as an example, has a problem not with people necessarily thinking it's acceptable that men rape women but that the victim of these crimes are in some way "asking for it." An example is when those teenage football players in uh. Ohio? Raped a teenage girl at a house party. People ruined the life of that girl saying that she was at fault for being drunk and passed out at the party. Or stories of women who have consentual sex with a man and when the man decides he wants round two, she denies him and he forces her into it anyways. Neither of these are acceptable. The point that gets lost all too often in the West is "no one should be violated *under any circumstances.*" In the under-developed world it's just a lot more honest about it.

    Posted by Avalanchemike

    • But given the situation with ISIS it seems like there could be more than just third world crime in this case. It seems more like a targetted attack, not by all muslims but by a group that is very much muslim. Don't you think ideology could help explain why people think certain behaviors are acceptable?

      Posted by WyntrHeart

    • Right, but it's important to differentiate with actors why they are engaging in an action. In our world today there is rampant amounts of Islamophobia and xenophobia. Across Europe and North America mosques are defaced, people who happen to look different are harassed, bullied or assaulted (I can think of Sihks, a religion which is very distinct from Islam, being targeted in the US for example) - I'm assuming that you are or were Christian at one point. Most Christians do not enage in the kind of behaviour members of ISIS (which I will refer to Daesh further on). Of course, we have our hill billies, the people who would love to lynch a black or gay man because we can interpret something in the Bible suggesting it's fine! We still have people who would be absolutely fine with slavery or with women being forced into kitchens and homes and out of work places. But we know and understand that these people are unusual, not the norm, and we do not mistake them for that. Daesh, the Taliban, Al Qaeda; all of these are the hill billies of the Muslim world. These people are fringe groups that almost all Western muslims revile and even in their home countries are actively fought against *by other Muslims.* In Syria there are moderates, Kurds, even the Syrian government, who fight Daesh. All of these people are Muslims too but most people, if they even recognise that there are Muslims fighting against these terrorist groups, never really remember this. It is easy to give in to simple instinct, to think of things as merely us vs them, to indulge in the idea that if we just kill all of those other guys our problems will be gone. But life is not that simple. I mean, how many people in that thread recognise that France actively puts immigrants from Africa into ghettos and has for years. That they have created laws which actively discriminate against the widespread culture mores, such as facial coverings being banned. That minarets in Switzerland are banned, something which takes direct aim at Muslims attempting to worship. Blaming everything on one side without being aware of the whole picture (which is to say, not merely that these men come from nations which have cultural mores which are unacceptable to us, but that they also face active discrimination in their new homes in addition to massive amounts of culture shock) is intellectually lazy.

      Posted by Avalanchemike

    • And I mean, that's exactly what Daesh, Taliban and Al Qaeda *want* from us. They want us to hate all Muslims, to hurt them, to give them no choice but to return to their "home nations" - this will fuel their organisations, giving them more members, giving them more money, giving them greater influence. By allowing ourselves to associate all Muslims together without distinguishing between the good and the bad, recognising those differences, we are losing the very war against these organisations in which we actively fight.

      Posted by Avalanchemike

  • I study colonial urbanism. :)

    Posted by Jehanne

    • Lol I don't know what that means. What is colonial urbanism?

      Posted by WyntrHeart

    • Oh. XD In the nineteenth century through the end of WW2, rather newly formed European nations got really excited about taking over Africa and Asia. So the British, French, Italians, etc., established colonial cities as centers to govern their new colonial "holdings." I study architecture mostly, so I'm aware of Le Corbusier's proposal for developing the capital in Ethiopia for the facist Italian empire.

      Posted by Jehanne

    • I'm still not exactly sure what the term "colonial urbanism" refers to specifically though. I do know that Europe tried to colonize basically every inch of land they could get their hands on in the 19th and 20th centuries though. I've never heard of Le Corbusier or his proposal either, but I haven't studied colonialism in detail, I just know the basics.

      Posted by WyntrHeart

  • I was literally just listening to music from RWBY a few minutes ago. I love Ruby! HI!

    Posted by Ayen

  • Boo.

    Posted by A Link to my Heart

  • Probably a good idea on making that thread for capitalism.

    Posted by Pennington

    • Thanks. I feel like it wasn't a very well written and organized OP though

      Posted by WyntrHeart

  • You've changed quite a bit since you've joined. How goes it?

    Posted by Yawn

    • Lol yeah... I've gone through a lot of change in the past few years. I outgrew a lot of what I was raised with. It goes good lol, wbu?

      Posted by WyntrHeart

    • Same, man. Change was tough.. It's going well.

      Posted by Yawn

    • For me it was much tougher before I changed because I was very internally conflicted between what I thought was right and what I felt was right. Once I was finally able to let go of religion everything else just kinda fell into place.

      Posted by WyntrHeart

  • I think the desire to do good does not necessarily translate into actual goodness. Some atrocities are committed because its perpetrators genuinely believed they were doing the right thing, such as [url=http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/mass-grave-galway-tuam-1494001-May2014/]some of the horrible things that were motivated by religion in Ireland[/url]. I think intent should be considered, but it doesn't change the fact that something horrible may well have been done. ^_^;

    And, again, I'm going to talk about extremes once more, but if we accept that homosexuality is also a biochemical phenomenon - again, a lot of gender and sexuality factors can be linked to hormones, which [I]physically exist[/I] much like skin pigmentation - can we justify parents changing the skin color of their children because they feel the natural skin color of their children are "immoral"? ^_^;

    Posted by Ysionris

  • Yes, but the intent does not change the fact that harm was done to the child. In India, does a father killing a daughter "although I love her, but she brought shame upon the family" have any real, significant difference with the father killing a daughter "because I hate her and she brought shame upon the family"? It's an exaggerated example, but I'm bringing it up to show the principle of it. I think intent shouldn't be brushed under the table, but it's the effect - the end-result - that is of far greater importance. ^_^;

    And I do not see how homosexuality is at all equivalent to "a child enjoyed hurting people". You have a need to stop children from harming others, of course, but homosexuality is anything but. ^_^;

    Posted by Ysionris

  • So, as long as you work at something, you would automatically be entitled to the goods made. Universal access to the goods created by the syndicates works because your contribution to society serves as a medium through which to trade. You trade your labor for universal access to the goods.

    Someone who cuts down trees for example and belongs to a lumber syndicate would not expect compensation in the form of money when he/she can just go to all the stores and get whatever personal goods he/she wants for free anyway. You get goods "free" when you contribute to society. Your work serves as your voucher. That makes wages and the money medium obsolete.

    So, John, who works at a computer hardware manufacturing syndicate gets automatic access to the community stores. He can buy video games, food, gas, whatever and do so without reservation unless he surpasses a kind of "community quota". John can't go into the video game store and take a hundred games for himself for instance. He can get two or three this month. John can't go to the grocery store and buy a truck load of food (he can't infringe on the quota others need), but he can still get plenty of food for the month. He's able to consume goods in this way for almost everything.

    Those making the food, the gas, the video games would be doing so out of a sense of passion and/or what the community needs. Bill makes video games. Bill makes them even though his labor isn't compensated with money because it's compensated with universal access to the stores like what John has.

    Syndicates labor to make things depending on the demand of the communes they serve and depending on the needs of the commune. Community stores get the goods, working people take the goods. Supply and demand works through the communication of community stores and communes and syndicates. Markets and wage vouchers like money are totally irrelevant in this kind of system.

    Say that the city of Lexington Kentucky is a commune. A syndicate that makes shoes for Lexington can make one pair of shoes for each person in the city per month. That means that all working people get "free" access to a pair of shoes a month. But say that Beth has a huge shoe fetish. She wants to buy 3 pairs of shoes. Well, she can't. The syndicate can only make so many (the syndicate would let the community store know how much they can make a month). If Beth took 3 pairs of shoes she would be stealing shoes from two other people that month (let's assume for this mock scenario that every person in Lexington takes a pair of shoes every month).

    Now, suppose a few years down the road, the shoe craze in Lexington has fallen off quite a bit. Now, the community stores are communicating to the syndicate that only 23% of people in Lexington want a pair of shoes in a month. Well, the syndicate can continue working at their normal efficiency but now they can supply the 29% of shoe lovers with dozens of pairs of shoes a month.

    Posted by M107

  • I'm not a psychologist, neurologist, biologist, or any combination of the above, so I really don't know for a great certainty whether or not parents telling their children not to "act homosexual" until the age of majority causes harm. I do think it deprives them of a great deal of emotional support that a child expects a parent to provide, though; imagine if you like a girl (I'm assuming you are a heterosexual male), but your parents tell you that it's wrong and awful and immoral, and that it is a sin to like girls, and you must like boys. Sure, you can ignore your parents once you reach the age of majority, but I think parental denial of who you are can be very painful for a child who still seeks moral direction from their parents; their parents are saying that their feelings - which they have no control over - are bad and wrong, and although I myself cannot say with certainty whether or not it's harmful (again, I don't possess a medical degree), I think the potential is there. ^_^;

    More importantly, however, I don't think "especially when it is done out of love for the child" is a great position to take. Many people have done a great many horrible things "out of love for the child", and I'm not certain the intent of it greatly changes the fact that children have been subjected to terrible, terrible experiences out of this "love". ^_^;

    Posted by Ysionris

  • I'm not sure homosexuality is just a behavior or a way of thinking; there is an increasing library of academic evidence that certain biological factors influence sexual orientation, such as hormone composition, very much a biochemical factor. It is true that one can choose not to engage in certain [I]behaviors[/I], but using a libertarian argument, why would you bar your child from engaging in an act that harms no one? Is religious belief truly a valid reason to prevent your child from being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex? ^_^;

    Posted by Ysionris

  • This may be true, but a constant stream of rejection of whom you are can be damaging. I do not know which ethnic group you are part of, so this is just a random example on my part, but I suppose you would disagree with black parents making it clear that they wished their child was white, for example. ^_^;

    Posted by Ysionris

  • Ah, perhaps I was not quite as concise as I should've been. Yes, there are valid parental concerns about things such as sex before the age of majority, and while this is another topic that's actually quite complex and has to do quite a bit with psychology and our views on sex, let's just say - for the sake of streamlining this discussion - that I broadly agree with you about parents enforcing a "no-sex" policy for their children. ^_^;

    This, however, is not what I'm talking about. Sexual orientation does not equal sex; it merely means whom you're attracted to. As a teenager going through puberty yet not old enough to live alone yet, this probably means having crushes on people whom you think you're cute. Imagine now that your parents effectively said you're not allowed to be attracted to people to the opposite sex, that you're not allowed to have crushes on them, that you're only allowed to have crushes towards people of the same sex. [I]That[/I] is what I consider to be possibly psychologically abusive. ^_^;

    Posted by Ysionris

  • Well, I think one of the things that the LGBT movement have been promoting quite ardently is the fact that denying their children the capacity to express their own sexual orientation is a form of mental harm. I broadly agree with you in that parents should be allowed to do that which does not cause mental or physical harm to the child, but I also postulate the idea that "don't be homosexual" may be a form of mental harm. Imagine if your parents told you that you were not allowed to be heterosexual as long as you live under their roof~ ^_^;

    Posted by Ysionris

  • What might you define as a non-essential good?

    Posted by M107

  • [quote]Also, just wondering, is your avatar a flag of some sort?[/quote]It's a flag I made that represents me. It represents two anarchist schools of thought that I commonly subscribe to. That is [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism"]Anarchist-Communism[/URL][/I] and [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_anarchism"]Queer Anarchism[/URL][/I]. The "V" logo represents something called [I][URL="http://www.thevenusproject.com/about/the-venus-project"]The Venus Project[/URL][/I].

    Posted by M107

  • Note that there is a distinction between private and personal property. You're absolutely correct in that your laptop would be your personal property, and wouldn't have any use to be collectively owned. Same would apply to your other possessions like your house, your car, your video games, and so on. None of those would be affected by the abolition of private property. Private productive property and personal possessive property are totally different.

    Private property on the other hand is property that is used to exploit the labor of other people. Factories, corporate apparatuses, capital in general. These thing would be expropriated for the public to use to create, or produce whatever is needed. "Whatever is needed" would be decided democratically, which is where science comes into play to help steer the decision making. For the most part as long as production doesn't exceed the [URL="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/"]planetary boundaries[/URL] AND (both conditions must be true) everyone's basic needs are met, then what's produced could be anything.

    As technology advances however you may not find much use in your laptop, and instead prefer to store all of your data in a centralized area, thus eliminating your need to lug it around everywhere you go. Furthermore, Moore's law would make your laptop obsolete over time, and you would want a faster machine, where a better solution might be to put all of the computational power in one area and integrate in to your house or wherever it's relevant to do so, which in turn would eliminate the waste of having numerous PC's. The same might apply to your car, lets say [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev"]Maglevs[/URL][/I] become a thing, and you find that they provide a better means of transportation than your car, or cities are redesigned in such a way so that transportation by car is rendered unnecessary and you could walk to where ever you needed to go.

    A "free market" (i.e. place of [I]exchange)[/I] wouldn't be necessary unless you're talking about the final destination that goods are distributed too (e.g [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give-away_shop"]Give-away shop [/URL][/I]). Either way you could posses property the same way in a marketless economy. You might ring things up simply for inventory purposes, but everything would be available without a price tag

    Posted by M107

  • [quote]What motivation is there in a totally communist system for an individual to work [B]when they know that they can not work and still enjoy the same luxuries as everyone else? [/B][/quote]The incentive to work would be in improving not only yourself, but also those around you. You wouldn't have to compete against each other to maintain a state of "well-being" (i.e. you'll have access to the necessities of life as defined in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs"]Maslow's hierarchy of needs[/URL] all the way up to "self-actualization"). Not to mention the end of war, territorial disputes, economic hardship, debt, and the basis for most crimes as they will all be eliminated given it's implementation at a global level.

    (via [URL="http://zgm.se/files/Books/The-Best-That-Money-Cant-Buy.pdf"]The Best That Money Can't Buy: Beyond Politics, Poverty, & War[/URL] by Jacque Fresco) ← I really recommend reading this first.This will give you an understanding on applying the scientific method to social concern, and the problems associated with our current socioeconomic system as well as solutions [quote]...Although many of us consider ourselves forward-thinkers, we still cling tenaciously to the old values of the monetary system. We accept without sufficient consideration a system that breeds inefficiencies and actually encourages the creation of shortages.

    For example, while many concerns about environmental destruction and the misuse of technology are justified, many environmentalists draw bleak scenarios about the future based on present-day methods and shortages. They view environmental destruction from the point of view that existing technologies are wasteful and used irresponsibly. They are accustomed to outmoded concepts and the economic imperatives of sales turnover and customer appeal. Although we recognize that technological development has been misdirected, the benefits far outweigh the negatives....

    If human civilization is to endure, it must outgrow our conspicuous waste of time, effort, and natural resources. One area in which we see this is architecture. Resource conservation must be incorporated into our structures...[/quote](via "[URL="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23428/23428-h/23428-h.htm"]The Conquest of Bread [/URL]" by Peter Kropotkin ) ← It will give you an understanding as to what some of the mechanisms in a communist system are.
    [quote] Hundreds of blast-furnaces, thousands of factories periodically stand idle, others only work half-time—and in every civilized nation there is a permanent population of about two million individuals who ask only for work, but to whom work is denied.

    How gladly would these millions of men set to work to reclaim waste lands, or to transform ill-cultivated land into fertile fields, rich in harvests! A year of well-directed toil would suffice to multiply fivefold the produce of those millions of acres in this country which lie idle now as "permanent pasture," or of those dry lands in the south of France which now yield only about eight bushels of wheat per acre. But men, who would be happy to become hardy pioneers in so many branches of wealth-producing activity, must remain idle because the owners of the soil, the mines and the factories prefer to invest their capital—taken in the first place from the community—in Turkish or Egyptian bonds, or in Patagonian gold mines, and so make Egyptian fellahs, Italian emigrants, and Chinese coolies their wage-slaves.

    This is the direct and deliberate limitation of production; but there is also a limitation indirect and not of set purpose, which consists in spending human toil on objects absolutely useless, or destined only to satisfy the dull vanity of the rich.

    It is impossible to reckon in figures the extent to which wealth is restricted indirectly, the extent to which energy is squandered, while it might have served to produce, and above all to prepare the machinery necessary to production.

    It is enough to cite the immense sums spent by Europe in armaments, for the sole purpose of acquiring control of markets, and so forcing her own goods on neighbouring territories, and making exploitation easier at home; the millions paid every year to officials of all sorts, whose function it is to maintain the "rights" of minorities—the right, that is, of a few rich men—to manipulate the economic activities of the nation; the millions spent on judges, prisons, policemen, and all the paraphernalia of so-called justice—spent to no purpose, because we know that every alleviation, however slight, of the wretchedness of our great cities is always followed by a considerable diminution of crime; lastly, the millions spent on propagating pernicious doctrines by means of the press, and news "cooked" in the interest of this or that party, of this politician or of that group of speculators.
    [/quote]

    Posted by M107

  • ... Huh, I don't think so. I think we've only Youtube tags, from what I can remember. You might wanna check with Shona or JustinZW as they handle tech around here and know more than I do, by a long shot.

    Posted by Malia

  • No prob. Just for future reference:

    All you need is the random bunch of letters/numbers at the end of the link, and in your link's case, it's "dtEVg8KNgBA" rather than the entire Youtube link, when entering it into the tags.

    Posted by Malia

  • Your vid tags were off in your OP so I fixed it for you.

    Posted by Malia

  • Thanks :)

    Posted by Flames of Valor

  • Hello, I don't really think you'll see this anytime soon, but um, Hi.

    Posted by Princess Deity

  • If anyone is wondering where i am i am going to be gone from ZU until around September, except maybe checking in occasionally because I am trying to spend less time on the computer.

    Bye for now ZU

    Posted by WyntrHeart

  • That is debatable. Personally, I believe that people were worse during the revolutionary period.

    It does.

    Posted by Yawn

  • Oh I know, there are always exceptions. But as a whole, teenagers tend to be the the most radical of types.

    Posted by Tabby

  • oh ho ho, it is a shame you had to learn the hard way that the majority of ZU is not really...accepting of such things. Though what does one really expect from a forum filled mainly with teenagers with little or no life experience?

    Posted by Tabby

  • Aye, it does. Only once or twice have they been enjoyable for me, usually they are just a huge annoyance. It is terrible spending up to an hour writing a post the other side will hardly read.

    On the second or third page of this thread I make an appearance. Was very fun to partake in, which is something of a rarity in SD.

    Posted by Tabby

  • I see you have experienced SD's giant quotewar threads.

    I have to apologise. They are terrible creations.

    Posted by Tabby