[Skybird]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Thats how I figured you function.

Heee...! I am no second Data!

Thats exactly what I was trying to say in my silly verbose way, I just couldn't articulate it as effectively. It seems though that since Socialism in general (or Communism as the others seem to insist) is such a hurdle for men to achieve that it is somehow then to be seen as pointless or misguided. Since when has the goal of being better than one already is a terrible thing? Even if we can't get to the world that Marx would approve of then at least we can try and see it as far as it will go. To be a christian is to live to a standard higher than most any man can be judged fit yet it is one of the core elements of Western society. But a disdain for socialism is not a rational thing. I don't see many arguments that are fit to contradict how you or I characterize it,

But I do not propagate socialism. Social behavior, social acting and social responsebility does not automatically translate into "socialism" - that is something very different. And I do not have too much sympathy for it either. Like communism, and democracy, it makes some very basic false assumptions about man: that man is acting on the basis of reasonable decisions, has a basic altruistic drive and accepts social responsebility as a natural state of mankind. But fact is that most people in their usual ordinary lives decice oin the basis of moods, daily changing feelings, and wishes to possess this or that, wether it be a material or non-material thing or quality. How altruistic we are since birth you can see when observing little kids playing who still have not learned the need of sharing with others, and that can hurt other's feeling by acting rude. Social responsebility also needs to be learned. In fact, all these things need to be learned. Societies only differ in the degree to which they make teaching and learning thiese qualities a natural duty from chilkdhood on. Those rasing their kids accordingly from early on then give the impression that these qualities are a natural attiude of man. But this is not so. Capitalism - the absence of these qualities, and the non-accepting of non-material ethics and ideas, illustrates much better the real nature of man. And since that is self-damaging, we need to overcome it, or evolution will put us up for consideration sooner or later.

I've thought of something along those lines before. I often like to consider if maybe certain social dichotomies were the result of leftover insticts from the gender roles in the wild; that it isn't all the evil patriarchy that's to blame.

The forming of the patriarchat was very much a natural thing when farming and hunting became a new variable in our ancestor's lives. We know for example that pregnant women doing work on the field have a far higher risk of suffering miscarriages than women avoiding too hard physical work. The plow on the field was better operated by the stronger males, than by females. And so on. there are many arguments that even several feministic female writers today accept as an explanation that it was not all about evil males pushing weak innocent females into slavery.

Maybe the best way to put it is that a man can change drastically but people hardly change a bit. Something about that group dynamic robs us of all the good sense we have in private.

Or as I use to say: a group's IQ is inversely proportional to the size of the group. The greater the group, the more power it'S anonymous authority projects onto the individual's reason and mind. That'S why I never joined demonstrations, unions or parties: no thoughts, but slogans only - the cheap replacement for thoughts.

I believe they say that German is the most similar language to English.

Is it? Most Western languages are relatively close to each other, that's why linear translation often works reasonably well. but I also need to translate a lot in this forum, of course, and often realize that an adequate translation, no matter in what direction, simply is not possible, and needs a verbal workaround instead. However, in German you can construct completely new words by simply adding two old ones that in other languages can not be formed that way, but would need to be described in their meaning instead. This is very practical, and many of such words get exported into other languages. the extent to which this is done in German is a unique characteristic of German. If I would be asked, then I would say that French and German have far more in common. However, i like English very much, and always had huge problems with French - grammatically, French is far more difficult than English. At school, it was a nightmare for me. i also never was competent in pronouncing it. My English often is fluid and sounds American, I am often told, some British or American customer appearing in the warehouse where I work sometimes mistake me to be an American (by sound), but my French is - Martian. I'm glad that I am able to avoid this typical hard, lumpy German accent you often hear in German English - it sounds awful and would make me feel very uncertain. Better risk a laugh at times, but let it roll!