First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Che Guevara
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/3/10
To be honest, if you want to find the true benefactors of our species, I suggest you all look at scientists, including practitioners of the medical science. The 'great' figures of politics and the 'heroes' of the social sciences (misnomer) are merely the bloodhounds of ideologies.
Posted 2/3/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

To be honest, if you want to find the true benefactors of our species, I suggest you all look at scientists, including practitioners of the medical science. The 'great' figures of politics and the 'heroes' of the social sciences (misnomer) are merely the bloodhounds of ideologies.
I am a little bit taken offense by that, only because I consider myself as an amateur social scientist. Just a little.
20924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 2/3/10

drizza wrote:

Lol I dont know who the hell he is haha. Have to do my own research. You should have added a tad bit more info or some links. It is all good though.


He is so popular that even his portrait is printed on T-Shirts everywhere in this world. So you are likely to find one in the future.
20924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 2/3/10
Of course people call him a "Communist" or a "Socialist", or whatever the US describe(and we stupidly listen and agreed to). But one thing that you forgot that he have inspired millions of workers in Latin America and abroad. Just think of the highest grossing film ever 'Avatar', and try to figure out the similarity between US atrocious foreign policy after WWII and the Earth-settlers in the movie.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/3/10 , edited 2/3/10

DomFortress wrote:

And thus, he only limited the term of "freedom" and "equality" for the "poor" which he considered as his people. But not the "rich". To say he was being bias towards his own people was nonetheless true.


That might be true in the past when there was a great distinction between poor and rich and a great number of violation conducted by those who have money and power. That kind of rich people were the ones who were being opposed by Che. However since the imperialism gone, the gap between rich and poor gradually lessened than before, Che encouraged rich Cubans to help everyone in their neighborhood by sharing their money to create a considerate environment (socialist).
The rich whom do not want to share their prosperity was Che's enemy, the rich that like to help poor were Che's comrade. He just dislike rich's people who only cared about themselves. You can be rich, but please share it.
Posted 2/3/10 , edited 2/3/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And thus, he only limited the term of "freedom" and "equality" for the "poor" which he considered as his people. But not the "rich". To say he was being bias towards his own people was nonetheless true.


That might be true in the past when there was a great distinction between poor and rich and a great number of violation conducted by those who have money and power. That kind of rich people were the ones who were being opposed by Che. However since the imperialism gone, the gap between rich and poor gradually lessened than before, Che encouraged rich Cubans to help everyone in their neighborhood by sharing their money to create a considerate environment (socialist).
The rich whom do not want to share their prosperity was Che's enemy, the rich that like to help poor were Che's comrade. He just dislike rich's people who only cared about themselves. You can be rich, but please share it.
And what about poor people who want to get rich with money and power? When they are also selfish and inconsiderate, by them only thinking about their needs and wants. Like Che himself for example.

Or are you saying it's likable for the poor and the powerless to be selfish and inconsiderate, but unlikable for the rich and the powerful to be the same. Where's the "equality" and "freedom" in that double-standard?


azera wrote:

Of course people call him a "Communist" or a "Socialist", or whatever the US describe(and we stupidly listen and agreed to). But one thing that you forgot that he have inspired millions of workers in Latin America and abroad. Just think of the highest grossing film ever 'Avatar', and try to figure out the similarity between US atrocious foreign policy after WWII and the Earth-settlers in the movie.
That's completely bogus and you know it, otherwise you've obviously misunderstood the movie itself because the natives don't have the concept of economy.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 2/3/10 , edited 2/3/10

azera wrote:

Of course people call him a "Communist" or a "Socialist", or whatever the US describe(and we stupidly listen and agreed to). But one thing that you forgot that he have inspired millions of workers in Latin America and abroad. Just think of the highest grossing film ever 'Avatar', and try to figure out the similarity between US atrocious foreign policy after WWII and the Earth-settlers in the movie.


Lol not going to lie when I watched that movie I thought the same thing. The humans being the USA and the avatars being the third world countries with the resources (cool movie to watch in 3D). Anyways yeah if he is even printed on shirts around the world I much have missed it or didnt care to much about it.
Posted 2/3/10
IMO, there is a better symbol of freedom. It simply comes as this:



And why the simple Guy Fawkes mask? Not because of V for Vendetta. No. Because, the Guy Fawkes mask has been associated with something much bigger. Anonymity. And through anonymity, one is free. It allows you to say or do things you would otherwise hold back or avoid, because you no longer fear reciprocation for your actions. That being said, not all of anonymous actions are good or bad. Being anonymous is a double edged sword. For your freedom, you take on the all the bad qualities anonymous displays. You lose individuality, and you become accountable for terrible things done under anonymity as well as the good. But you do gain equality, and acceptance amongst your anonymity. So its really a choice isn't it. The shackles of society and your supposed individuality? Or the loss of Individuality and these reins for freedom and acceptance?
Posted 2/3/10

kavyaan wrote:

IMO, there is a better symbol of freedom. It simply comes as this:



And why the simple Guy Fawkes mask? Not because of V for Vendetta. No. Because, the Guy Fawkes mask has been associated with something much bigger. Anonymity. And through anonymity, one is free. It allows you to say or do things you would otherwise hold back or avoid, because you no longer fear reciprocation for your actions. That being said, not all of anonymous actions are good or bad. Being anonymous is a double edged sword. For your freedom, you take on the all the bad qualities anonymous displays. You lose individuality, and you become accountable for terrible things done under anonymity as well as the good. But you do gain equality, and acceptance amongst your anonymity. So its really a choice isn't it. The shackles of society and your supposed individuality? Or the loss of Individuality and these reins for freedom and acceptance?
The way I see it, if I in my individuality can force others to become anonymous with what I have to say about their actions in our society. I've held them back from their own individual selves with my perception about themselves. In other words, I became what they fear the most; the inner critical voice known as self-awareness.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/4/10

DomFortress wrote:

And what about poor people who want to get rich with money and power? When they are also selfish and inconsiderate, by them only thinking about their needs and wants. Like Che himself for example.

Or are you saying it's likable for the poor and the powerless to be selfish and inconsiderate, but unlikable for the rich and the powerful to be the same. Where's the "equality" and "freedom" in that double-standard?


Poor will get their needs and want. They also have power to govern themselves and money to fund their life. That's the basic of wants and needs that lies in every person. Whoever seek that basic needs shouldn't be considered as selfish beings. They deserve to seek their money and power without hurting anyone. Same goes to rich person, they can get money and power. It's not like the system rob them and force them to give all their wealth.
Everyone has equal rights to achieve what they need and what they wants, by saying they can't get food meaning you're being a dictator.
Posted 2/4/10 , edited 2/4/10

azera wrote:





He is so popular that even his portrait is printed on T-Shirts everywhere in this world. So you are likely to find one in the future.




You know, his portrait was made by Andy Warhol, as far as I know (Andy fan girl here) and it has no meaning because Warhol simply used popular faces of his time in his prints, see Marilyn Monroe.

Plus, the reason why do people wear this, my classmate included, that they know shite about Che. They just want to look like this popular type of a rebel without a cause. All they know about Che is he was a figure fighting for freedom. What freedom and what methods, they don't care. Those people are pathetic.
20924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Singapore
Offline
Posted 2/4/10


azera wrote:

Of course people call him a "Communist" or a "Socialist", or whatever the US describe(and we stupidly listen and agreed to). But one thing that you forgot that he have inspired millions of workers in Latin America and abroad. Just think of the highest grossing film ever 'Avatar', and try to figure out the similarity between US atrocious foreign policy after WWII and the Earth-settlers in the movie.
That's completely bogus and you know it, otherwise you've obviously misunderstood the movie itself because the natives don't have the concept of economy.

I'm not talking about natives not having a concept of economy, im actually pointing out the way the Earth-settlers treat the Natives is quite similar to what the US have done to the democratic third-world countries after WWII.

Love the movie.
Posted 2/4/10 , edited 2/4/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

And what about poor people who want to get rich with money and power? When they are also selfish and inconsiderate, by them only thinking about their needs and wants. Like Che himself for example.

Or are you saying it's likable for the poor and the powerless to be selfish and inconsiderate, but unlikable for the rich and the powerful to be the same. Where's the "equality" and "freedom" in that double-standard?


Poor will get their needs and want. They also have power to govern themselves and money to fund their life. That's the basic of wants and needs that lies in every person. Whoever seek that basic needs shouldn't be considered as selfish beings. They deserve to seek their money and power without hurting anyone. Same goes to rich person, they can get money and power. It's not like the system rob them and force them to give all their wealth.
Everyone has equal rights to achieve what they need and what they wants, by saying they can't get food meaning you're being a dictator.
And those authority figures who run the system automatically get the money and power to rule the rich and the poor within their society. What rights and freedoms do they have for being in charge of the society? What justify them to deny the rich from getting the same things that the pool want; money and power toward happiness? When the psychology of happiness is a fuzzy logic(citation).


azera wrote:




azera wrote:

Of course people call him a "Communist" or a "Socialist", or whatever the US describe(and we stupidly listen and agreed to). But one thing that you forgot that he have inspired millions of workers in Latin America and abroad. Just think of the highest grossing film ever 'Avatar', and try to figure out the similarity between US atrocious foreign policy after WWII and the Earth-settlers in the movie.
That's completely bogus and you know it, otherwise you've obviously misunderstood the movie itself because the natives don't have the concept of economy.


I'm not talking about natives not having a concept of economy, im actually pointing out the way the Earth-settlers treat the Natives is quite similar to what the US have done to the democratic third-world countries after WWII.

Love the movie.
And that's still bogus, when the natives aren't democratic third-world nations. But rather tribal first-nation of their planet. The humans are the aliens, considering the fact that they can't even survive the climate without them relying on their technology.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/5/10 , edited 2/5/10

DomFortress wrote:


Ryutai-Desk wrote:

Poor will get their needs and want. They also have power to govern themselves and money to fund their life. That's the basic of wants and needs that lies in every person. Whoever seek that basic needs shouldn't be considered as selfish beings. They deserve to seek their money and power without hurting anyone. Same goes to rich person, they can get money and power. It's not like the system rob them and force them to give all their wealth.
Everyone has equal rights to achieve what they need and what they wants, by saying they can't get food meaning you're being a dictator.


And those authority figures who run the system automatically get the money and power to rule the rich and the poor within their society. What rights and freedoms do they have for being in charge of the society? What justify them to deny the rich from getting the same things that the pool want; money and power toward happiness? When the psychology of happiness is a fuzzy logic(citation
).

You should read the history of Cuba first. Cuba is not imperial nations which only depends on bloodline like past china or current Japan. They (Fidel Castro and Che Guevara) were being chosen by their people for able to oppose the corrupt government and make everything stable until now. If Che still alive, surely he will be the leader now. It would be easier if you read Mao Zedong story or read the history of how People Republic of China was founded.
Posted 2/5/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:
You should read the history of Cuba first. Cuba is not imperial nations which only depends on bloodline like past china or current Japan. They (Fidel Castro and Che Guevara) were being chosen by their people for able to oppose the corrupt government and make everything stable until now. If Che still alive, surely he will be the leader now. It would be easier if you read Mao Zedong story or read the history of how People Republic of China was founded.
What do the historical cause and effect about the founding of nations have anything to do with the fact that they still got humanity wrong? When social economists have a better solution at how to solve social problems(citation).
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.