Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Is he more insane than me? Where do I stand on your scale?

On my scale? I was not aware I had a scale. You are not insane Eric. Stupid...very likely. Insane...no. Last I checked stupidity was not a mental illness, though it is a real condition that should be checked into. Dr. Kinser prescribes running off of the mouth less and reading a lot more (and I mean actually reading things not merely reading enough to post a response on this forum--a barely literate philistine can accomplish that).

By your definition, there never were any communist states. So, meaningless. By CH's definition, communists are still comin' to git us and are hiding under every bed. So, meaningless.

Not by my definition, but rather the definition of what communism is itself. Vietnam and Laos never even developed socialism, their "communism" stems more from a radical form of nationalism. The DPRK is its own weird thing. They developed socialism but along Juche lines rather than Marxist ones. Unfortunately I don't understand Juche enough to really discuss it in depth, but that's okay, most North Korean theorists don't understand Juche either. China developed socialism but it was undermined and revised by Dengite revisionism but was revisionist from the outset due to Mao's eclecticism.

Cuba as I have said in other threads at other times adopted socialism as a model due to cold war pressures. They have developed a low level of socialism, though not as advanced as what Albania had. A lot of that had to do with Castro not really being a Marxist though. Enver Hoxha however was a Marxist-Leninist and Albania is perhaps the most advanced 20th century socialism could achieve.

So you admit there's a difference, eh?

I've never denied the difference between the animate and inanimate, unlike others here Eric. My use of the phrase "object rather than subject" is short hand that anyone with a 9th grade understanding of philosophy would understand immediately. There are those, however, who deny the existence of this difference. Mostly because they ascribe to inanimate objects the consciousness of animate objects.

Yes, but this assumes that Cynic Hero has more familiarity with logic even than I do.

I would never assume that you or CH were familiar with logic. Neither of you have posted anything to indicate a familiarity with logic--even of the most pedestrian kinds of logic.

Again, by your definition, and the agrarian ideal was definitely uppermost for Pol Pot and Mao, even if not exclusively.

Not really. With Mao the goal was for the peasant class to produce vast surpluses of grain to feed the rapidly industrializing cities. With Pol Pot, the goal was to produce grain so as to not starve. The Vietnam Conflict disrupted Cambodian agriculture to the point of making Asia's rice bowl have to import food.

Oh I see here you have placed me on your scale. Good, whew!

There really isn't a scale.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Is it just me or is CH clearly insane?



Two problems here: 1. There isn't a communist state in the world today, not China, not Vietnam, not even the DPRK. In fact the Five states with a CP still ruling them are not now and never were communist. Those states are for edification of those who care to know: China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK and Cuba.

I had just assumed that CH had found/invented a time machine in the early '60s and transported himself here to share the wisdom of his world.

Originally Posted by rds

I had just assumed that CH had found/invented a time machine in the early '60s and transported himself here to share the wisdom of his world.

The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible.

Both you and CH are clearly from the past, so it must be possible

Once Skynet is in charge, we'll all become cyborgs and we can time-travel wherever (whenever) we like.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Both you and CH are clearly from the past, so it must be possible

You obviously did not get the reference.

As for being from the past, we all are from the past, and inching our way slowly into the future. Time travel is possible but only in one direction and at one speed--at least as far as we understand temporal mechanics.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

As for being from the past, we all are from the past, and inching our way slowly into the future. Time travel is possible but only in one direction and at one speed--at least as far as we understand temporal mechanics.

Pretty much true so long as one isn't traveling at speeds fast enough to compare to the speed of light. Relativistic time distortion has been observed and measured, but you have to get moving very fast and have a very accurate clock to measure it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Pretty much true so long as one isn't traveling at speeds fast enough to compare to the speed of light. Relativistic time distortion has been observed and measured, but you have to get moving very fast and have a very accurate clock to measure it.

Indeed, it is getting up to speeds close to that of light which is the problem. Also I'm familiar with the theory of relativity.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Indeed, it is getting up to speeds close to that of light which is the problem. Also I'm familiar with the theory of relativity.

Right. As velocity increases, energy transforms itself into matter and is added to mass, making acceleration even more difficult.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Right. As velocity increases, energy transforms itself into matter and is added to mass, making acceleration even more difficult.

That's not really correct, or at least potentially misleading. If you accelerated a piece of iron up to some appreciable fraction of c (or did anything to add energy), its mass would change, but there would not be more iron or what have you.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

As for "Restorationism" it sounds like a made up pseudo-facist nonsense to me.

Quite right, why is why my response to him was this.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

its mass would change, but there would not be more iron or what have you.

For example, suppose we put an object on a set of scales that are capable of measuring incredibly small increases in weight. Now heat the object. As its temperature rises causing its constituents' thermal motion to increase, the reading on the scales will increase.

Reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

Originally Posted by playwrite

If you truly believe that, then you are a big part of the problem.

I would disagree. I didn't say that I didn't vote. I do. I said that ultimately it doesn't matter much.

Originally Posted by Lenin

The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them in parliament.

Ultimately my aim is the overthrow of the capitalist system and its replacement with something else. I call that something else socialism. If bourgeois politics can be used to weaken the bourgeois state, then I'm all for that, but the final overthrow will have to be violent. Ruling classes, oppressing classes never give up their rule and/or oppression without a struggle.

Before you bring up the implosion of the Soviet Union, in that case, the revisionism began in the party and slowly reimplemented capitalism until such time as trying to masquerade as Marxist-Leninist was no longer necessary. In my view that is can be faulted with Stalin. He was too lenient after the war, that was when a purge was absolutely necessary and he didn't purge. But hindsight is 20/20, and Stalin's error was a human one. He was too compassionate, something I've criticized him on before.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

... In my view that is can be faulted with Stalin. He was too lenient after the war, that was when a purge was absolutely necessary and he didn't purge. But hindsight is 20/20, and Stalin's error was a human one. He was too compassionate, something I've criticized him on before.

Okay, that explains alot.

You and Cynic Hero should get a room - preferably, a padded one.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would disagree. I didn't say that I didn't vote. I do. I said that ultimately it doesn't matter much.

Ultimately my aim is the overthrow of the capitalist system and its replacement with something else. I call that something else socialism. If bourgeois politics can be used to weaken the bourgeois state, then I'm all for that, but the final overthrow will have to be violent. Ruling classes, oppressing classes never give up their rule and/or oppression without a struggle.

Before you bring up the implosion of the Soviet Union, in that case, the revisionism began in the party and slowly reimplemented capitalism until such time as trying to masquerade as Marxist-Leninist was no longer necessary. In my view that is can be faulted with Stalin. He was too lenient after the war, that was when a purge was absolutely necessary and he didn't purge. But hindsight is 20/20, and Stalin's error was a human one. He was too compassionate, something I've criticized him on before.

Marxist-Leninist restorationism. Pacify and kill your enemies and enforce your will.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, that explains alot.

You and Cynic Hero should get a room - preferably, a padded one.

I would kill CH in about ten minutes. Perhaps I'd get a Citizen of the Year Award for that. But my statement is actually quite common for Marxist-Leninists. Those who have read Marx and Lenin for themselves (and not the Ciff's notes) understand that terror is part of the revolutionary process.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Marxist-Leninist restorationism. Pacify and kill your enemies and enforce your will.

One problem, it is myself and the other communist arsenals and armies that are going to ethnically cleanse people like him. As such our world views would be incompatible.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I would kill CH in about ten minutes. Perhaps I'd get a Citizen of the Year Award for that. But my statement is actually quite common for Marxist-Leninists. Those who have read Marx and Lenin for themselves (and not the Ciff's notes) understand that terror is part of the revolutionary process.



One problem, it is myself and the other communist arsenals and armies that are going to ethnically cleanse people like him. As such our world views would be incompatible.

No, your world view is the violent world of "terror" that you want in common. You each hope the violence will end with your victory. You are both wrong. It's World War Two all over again.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, your world view is the violent world of "terror" that you want in common. You each hope the violence will end with your victory. You are both wrong. It's World War Two all over again.

The world is filled with violence and terror Eric. The sixties have failed, all the flower children long ago abandoned that project. Now if you're quite done, you can kindly go back to smoking your LSD and listening to your Richard Nixon albums and pretending you are remotely relevant.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The world is filled with violence and terror Eric. The sixties have failed, all the flower children long ago abandoned that project. Now if you're quite done, you can kindly go back to smoking your LSD and listening to your Richard Nixon albums and pretending you are remotely relevant.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a Richard Nixon fan. I am not a crook either!

Smoke LSD; there's a new one. You seem to have a line on the stuff that I've not heard of.

Yes, that's your world view. The world is filled with violence and terror. Because of the decisions by such people as Cynic Hero and yourself, and for no other reason.

Peace and love, man. Beautiful. I should put some flowers in my hair today.
https://youtu.be/7I0vkKy504U

If we create peace, we will have peace. The only cause of anything, is now. That's an undeniable fact, and a logical certainty; not an unknowable.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I am not a Richard Nixon fan. I am not a crook either!

Smoke LSD; there's a new one. You seem to have a line on the stuff that I've not heard of.

Apparently you have not heard of feigned ignorance. I'm well aware of your not being a fan of Richard Nixon. After all you advocate voting for Democrats even if they run Hitler. You are part of that 30% I described earlier.

Yes, that's your world view. The world is filled with violence and terror. Because of the decisions by such people as Cynic Hero and yourself, and for no other reason.

No the world is filled with violence and terror because it is filled with it. My decisions are to bring peace, but peace is bought and paid for in the blood of oppressors. Much like to make an omelet one must crack eggs. Cracked eggs are the price of an omelet.

Peace and love, man. Beautiful. I should put some flowers in my hair today.<snip link>

Maybe you should. It would be certainly post-seasonal, but you've been post-seasonal for decades now. At least it will occupy you for a few minutes and perhaps the adults could talk for a few seconds.

If we create peace, we will have peace. The only cause of anything, is now. That's an undeniable fact, and a logical certainty; not an unknowable.

Peace is created by force. Force is by its nature violent. Therefore violence is the father of peace. The rest of that last statement is nonsense.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html

That's what I mean. Energy has mass, or you could say that mass is a measure of energy, because of mass-energy equivalence. A hot or high velocity object does not have more mass because the energy transforms into "matter".

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Peace is created by force. Force is by its nature violent. Therefore violence is the father of peace. The rest of that last statement is nonsense.

Sounds like the old "Peace through Superior Firepower" concept. The NRA will no doubt be sending you opportunities to donate to the cause.

The problem of peace is of course much messier than this exchange of ad-homiums.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Apparently you have not heard of feigned ignorance. I'm well aware of your not being a fan of Richard Nixon. After all you advocate voting for Democrats even if they run Hitler. You are part of that 30% I described earlier.

I haven't voted for a Democrat for president since 1992. Whatcha thin' of dat, dude?

No the world is filled with violence and terror because it is filled with it. My decisions are to bring peace, but peace is bought and paid for in the blood of oppressors. Much like to make an omelet one must crack eggs. Cracked eggs are the price of an omelet.

And omelets are cooked with more fire. Meanwhile, no chickens are hatched. So, no life; no peace. Just more stuff for the oppressors to eat.

Sometimes, in our times, some violence may be needed to enforce laws. But lawless violence is another matter.

Maybe you should. It would be certainly post-seasonal, but you've been post-seasonal for decades now. At least it will occupy you for a few minutes and perhaps the adults could talk for a few seconds.

Well, maybe-- if it occupied you as well while you watched me, in admiration (or contempt).

Peace is created by force. Force is by its nature violent. Therefore violence is the father of peace. The rest of that last statement is nonsense.

Truth is truth. But no, I can't force it on you. I have offered my services to you as doctor of truth. But, I will have to charge you a bundle, since your over-heated amygdala will require special cooling equipment, plus I'll need an inspector to strip-search you for weapons and bombs. It IS a dangerous proposition for a wise healer like myself to counsel an admitted terrorist.

Liberal democracy in itself has no convictions upon which people would be willing to stake their lives. Restorationism would bring about an awakening of American consciousness, the complete purge of the corporate and oligarch classes, and replacement of those classes by the meritocratic administrative class and a new class of rising entrepreneurs will bring about a revitalized America which in which the prospects of social mobility will return and a ruling class that actually cares about the people. This would bring about a military-revolution around new strategies, tactics and tech carried out by armies of our men and women who would be true believers in their destiny of their world mission.

There would be no more iron (or any other substance) , but such iron (or other substance) would become more massive and gain resistance to acceleration.

Although the atomic mass of the iron would not change (for the isotope iron-56/Fe-56 the atomic mass is 55.9349375, the 'shortage' of atomic mass reflecting that this isotope has the lowest energy per nucleon), the mass of an atom of Fe-56, but not the atomic mass, would increase in a ratio γ (the Greek letter gamma)of the Lorentz equation relating velocity of an object to the speed of light (c).

γ = (1-v²/c²) ^ (-1/2)

For an object at rest, γ is one.



An object would have to be accelerated to 5% of the speed of light (which is extremely fast for any material object) to get an increase of even one thousandth. Needless to say nobody calculates the relativistic weight of a race car, let alone a race horse, as a practical consideration. Even at 50% of the speed of light, the increase in mass is only 15%.

But at 0.99995c, γ is 100. The atomic mass of Fe-56 remains 55.9349375, but at that speed what was 55.9349375 grams at rest (the chemist's mole) becomes 5593.49375 grams.