First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Che Guevara
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/10/10 , edited 2/10/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Its about doing the job you wanna do, your dream job.. Money is not a factor anymore. So if you wanted to be a doctor, and your smart enough to do it, the schooling is free.. Become a doctor. If your hero is a cop and you wanna be just like him than do it.. Money does not need to be a factor in picking your life goals.
Tell me do you think its fair for a person like a actor or a sports star to make more than a welder ho has much more hazardous of a job.

This way everyone is not driven by greed but by there own passion.


I kind of agreed, nobody will be under pressure in society. Everyone will be equal and there'll be low crime as well. It's good for humanity. However, this kind of system will completely shut down the competition. Which means there'll be no improvement amongst corporations. And it's really bad for economy. The money is one of factor that will enhance human's skill and personality, moreover people will be improve harder if the money is the line of their life, death and life situation. By abandoned that factor, the person would lack of passion and initiative. After all, everyone will always have choice to not work in difficult environment that needs higher skill and education to do it. Many will choose the work that really not spend much thought and power to gain the money that amount as much as more skilled jobs.




DomFortress wrote:

You keep saying Che this and Che that, yet you have no baring as to who he was with what he did. You only cared about his ideals, when you're just as willing to negate his methods. Just like how you support today's Cuban government's military regime, even though you claimed that Che himself wouldn't approve of their methods; the same methods that Che himself implied in order for him to realize his own ideals: by force even when it isn't necessary.

And the proof is if both Che as well as the current Cuban military regime had the best intention of all their people in mind, why do they need to arm themselves with guns and military respectively? And if they think that them having guns and militarizing themselves is such a good idea, then why can't they just issue all of the Cuban citizens with guns, instead the rights to vote for military representatives?


I both approved his ideals and method, a person who only has method (war) is merely barbaric person, a person who only has ideals is merely a dreamer that only can talk without act. And Che was able to communicate his ideals and implement it by action.
Does any country who had experienced war will mindless enough to have its own military to protect themselves? Country which doesn't have military would only be waiting to be manipulated by foreign country like what Cubans had before.



Posted 2/10/10 , edited 2/11/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Its about doing the job you wanna do, your dream job.. Money is not a factor anymore. So if you wanted to be a doctor, and your smart enough to do it, the schooling is free.. Become a doctor. If your hero is a cop and you wanna be just like him than do it.. Money does not need to be a factor in picking your life goals.
Tell me do you think its fair for a person like a actor or a sports star to make more than a welder ho has much more hazardous of a job.

This way everyone is not driven by greed but by there own passion.


I kind of agreed, nobody will be under pressure in society. Everyone will be equal and there'll be low crime as well. It's good for humanity. However, this kind of system will completely shut down the competition. Which means there'll be no improvement amongst corporations. And it's really bad for economy. The money is one of factor that will enhance human's skill and personality, moreover people will be improve harder if the money is the line of their life, death and life situation. By abandoned that factor, the person would lack of passion and initiative. After all, everyone will always have choice to not work in difficult environment that needs higher skill and education to do it. Many will choose the work that really not spend much thought and power to gain the money that amount as much as more skilled jobs.




DomFortress wrote:

You keep saying Che this and Che that, yet you have no baring as to who he was with what he did. You only cared about his ideals, when you're just as willing to negate his methods. Just like how you support today's Cuban government's military regime, even though you claimed that Che himself wouldn't approve of their methods; the same methods that Che himself implied in order for him to realize his own ideals: by force even when it isn't necessary.

And the proof is if both Che as well as the current Cuban military regime had the best intention of all their people in mind, why do they need to arm themselves with guns and military respectively? And if they think that them having guns and militarizing themselves is such a good idea, then why can't they just issue all of the Cuban citizens with guns, instead the rights to vote for military representatives?


I both approved his ideals and method, a person who only has method (war) is merely barbaric person, a person who only has ideals is merely a dreamer that only can talk without act. And Che was able to communicate his ideals and implement it by action.
Does any country who had experienced war will mindless enough to have its own military to protect themselves? Country which doesn't have military would only be waiting to be manipulated by foreign country like what Cubans had before.
Now I know who you really are; you're someone who only respects and obeys authority without question. That makes debunking your argument so bloody easy and unoriginal, it's not even funny or remotely challenging.

First up, your "enhance human's skill and personality" with money argument. I'll let Daniel H. Pink, author of the book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, to tell you about what actually motivates people in his own sentence.

Still not convinced? Well then allow him to elaborate his concept further with real evidences. And as an afterthought here's Anthony "Tony" Robbins, motivational speaker and advocate of leadership psychology, on what he thinks that made us better at what we do.

Second, your "lack of passion and initiative" without economic competition argument. I'll let Kiran Bir Sethi, director of the Riverside School in Ahmedabad, to tell you in her own words just what initiates passion among people.

And who can tell better story about passion than Isabel Allende, master storyteller in the realm of fantasy writing, with her experience in a series of tale of passion.

Still not convinced? Well then perhaps Dr. Benjamin Bernard Dunlap, president of Wofford College, can explain better about what makes a passionate life. “Ez a mi munkank. Es nem is keves. Ya napot, pacak!”

Finally my previous assessment about you being no fun still stands, when Dr. Philip Zimbardo, professor at the Palo Alto University, discussed in his own words how(WARING: video with graphical contents that's extremely NSFW) people can become monsters. Or what he called in his book the Lucifer Effect, that one of the seven things that could make people to turn evil is in fact a social obedience of authority without questioning.

Again as an afterthought, I also know how you'll then retreat back to your religion of Islam. By you proclaiming your religious belief of a patriarchal society is authorized by the highest authority figure ever "existed". Thus you'll declare end of discussion because according to the universal human rights act, your religious freedom needs to be respected by the rest of the human society. No matter how unnatural the patriarchal society is according to biological anthropologist Dr Helen Fisher, with her theory about the science of love, and the future of women.

But hey, you don't have to feel bad about what you eventually will do. Because all you did was essentially eliminated your choices and just stick to whatever you had to begin with, regardless if it works or not. Just like how psychologist Barry Schwartz said that you would, when you encountered the paradox of choice.

And I still would like it better if you could just take my words, instead of me doing your bloody research for you. Because I'm much happier for doing things that I want for my own benefits. And when my benefactors are the rest of humanity instead of just you, I would be even happier.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/11/10

DomFortress wrote:

Now I know who you really are; you're someone who only respects and obeys authority without question. That makes debunking your argument so bloody easy and unoriginal, it's not even funny or remotely challenging.

First up, your "enhance human's skill and personality" with money argument. I'll let Daniel H. Pink, author of the book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, to tell you about what actually motivates people in his own sentence.

Still not convinced? Well then allow him to elaborate his concept further with real evidences. And as an afterthought here's Anthony "Tony" Robbins, motivational speaker and advocate of leadership psychology, on what he thinks that made us better at what we do.

Second, your "lack of passion and initiative" without economic competition argument. I'll let Kiran Bir Sethi, director of the Riverside School in Ahmedabad, to tell you in her own words just what initiates passion among people.

And who can tell better story about passion than Isabel Allende, master storyteller in the realm of fantasy writing, with her experience in a series of tale of passion.

Still not convinced? Well then perhaps Dr. Benjamin Bernard Dunlap, president of Wofford College, can explain better about what makes a passionate life. “Ez a mi munkank. Es nem is keves. Ya napot, pacak!”

Finally my previous assessment about you being no fun still stands, when Dr. Philip Zimbardo, professor at the Palo Alto University, discussed in his own words how(WARING: video with graphical contents that's extremely NSFW) people can become monsters. Or what he called in his book the Lucifer Effect, that one of the seven things that could make people to turn evil is in fact a social obedience of authority without questioning.

Again as an afterthought, I also know how you'll then retreat back to your religion of Islam. By you proclaiming your religious belief of a patriarchal society is authorized by the highest authority figure ever "existed". Thus you'll declare end of discussion because according to the universal human rights act, your religious freedom needs to be respected by the rest of the human society. No matter how unnatural the patriarchal society is according to biological anthropologist Dr Helen Fisher, with her theory about the science of love, and the future of women.

But hey, you don't have to feel bad about what you eventually will do. Because all you did was essentially eliminated your choices and just stick to whatever you had to begin with, regardless if it works or not. Just like how psychologist Barry Schwartz said that you would, when you encountered the paradox of choice.

And I still would like it better if you could just take my words, instead of me doing your bloody research for you. Because I'm much happier for doing things that I want for my own benefits. And when my benefactors are the rest of humanity instead of just you, I would be even happier.


I would prefer you discuss your so called bloody research yourself rather than referring to others and avoiding direct discussion with me. Otherwise, you're someone who only proud of your individuality in low level but afraid to prove yourself and rely others without stand on your own. That makes this discussion bloody useless without deep understanding of your own argument and very unoriginal, it's not even worthy to talk about.

If you really wanted to show how high your individuality is, show it to me without doing any useless bloody research, not to mention that's really not a scientist. Therefore, I can't take your words blindly, that's not an improvement for any person that seeks knowledge. What was your point again?


Posted 2/11/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Now I know who you really are; you're someone who only respects and obeys authority without question. That makes debunking your argument so bloody easy and unoriginal, it's not even funny or remotely challenging.

First up, your "enhance human's skill and personality" with money argument. I'll let Daniel H. Pink, author of the book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, to tell you about what actually motivates people in his own sentence.

Still not convinced? Well then allow him to elaborate his concept further with real evidences. And as an afterthought here's Anthony "Tony" Robbins, motivational speaker and advocate of leadership psychology, on what he thinks that made us better at what we do.

Second, your "lack of passion and initiative" without economic competition argument. I'll let Kiran Bir Sethi, director of the Riverside School in Ahmedabad, to tell you in her own words just what initiates passion among people.

And who can tell better story about passion than Isabel Allende, master storyteller in the realm of fantasy writing, with her experience in a series of tale of passion.

Still not convinced? Well then perhaps Dr. Benjamin Bernard Dunlap, president of Wofford College, can explain better about what makes a passionate life. “Ez a mi munkank. Es nem is keves. Ya napot, pacak!”

Finally my previous assessment about you being no fun still stands, when Dr. Philip Zimbardo, professor at the Palo Alto University, discussed in his own words how(WARING: video with graphical contents that's extremely NSFW) people can become monsters. Or what he called in his book the Lucifer Effect, that one of the seven things that could make people to turn evil is in fact a social obedience of authority without questioning.

Again as an afterthought, I also know how you'll then retreat back to your religion of Islam. By you proclaiming your religious belief of a patriarchal society is authorized by the highest authority figure ever "existed". Thus you'll declare end of discussion because according to the universal human rights act, your religious freedom needs to be respected by the rest of the human society. No matter how unnatural the patriarchal society is according to biological anthropologist Dr Helen Fisher, with her theory about the science of love, and the future of women.

But hey, you don't have to feel bad about what you eventually will do. Because all you did was essentially eliminated your choices and just stick to whatever you had to begin with, regardless if it works or not. Just like how psychologist Barry Schwartz said that you would, when you encountered the paradox of choice.

And I still would like it better if you could just take my words, instead of me doing your bloody research for you. Because I'm much happier for doing things that I want for my own benefits. And when my benefactors are the rest of humanity instead of just you, I would be even happier.


I would prefer you discuss your so called bloody research yourself rather than referring to others and avoiding direct discussion with me. Otherwise, you're someone who only proud of your individuality in low level but afraid to prove yourself and rely others without stand on your own. That makes this discussion bloody useless without deep understanding of your own argument and very unoriginal, it's not even worthy to talk about.

If you really wanted to show how high your individuality is, show it to me without doing any useless bloody research, not to mention that's really not a scientist. Therefore, I can't take your words blindly, that's not an improvement for any person that seeks knowledge. What was your point again?
That all these figures of authority in their own scientific rights all have better ideas than Che's could ever had in his lifetime. And yet you respect his ideas more simply because he had the only authorial figures that you could recognize: a gun and a dick.

Not only that, you lack the abstract thinking skills to weave together a pattern among all these ideas. While your concrete thinking skill only allows you to mimic only my words, without you forming anything convincing, cognitive, critical, or original to say.

Outspoken, out-thought, and outmatched. The only way for you to out compete me is for you to do what Che did with his oppositions; silence the opposition's voice with a gun.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/11/10

DomFortress wrote:

That all these figures of authority in their own scientific rights all have better ideas than Che's could ever had in his lifetime. And yet you respect his ideas more simply because he had the only authorial figures that you could recognize: a gun and a dick.

Not only that, you lack the abstract thinking skills to weave together a pattern among all these ideas. While your concrete thinking skill only allows you to mimic only my words, without you forming anything convincing, cognitive, critical, or original to say.

Outspoken, out-thought, and outmatched. The only way for you to out compete me is for you to do what Che did with his oppositions; silence the opposition's voice with a gun.


Of course, there are millions of people who's better than Che, can't say someone perfect just because he did something dramatically to whole country. I respect him because of his capability through words and actions to reality for the sake of his people. I 'd prefer to talk all of your bloody research directly with you understanding the whole concept of people you referenced with, can't be helped if you individuality prevent you for doing so. Talking about completely different matter to avoid the topic is just usual things people will do when they can't prove their point, moreover several ad hominem.

1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 2/11/10 , edited 2/11/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That all these figures of authority in their own scientific rights all have better ideas than Che's could ever had in his lifetime. And yet you respect his ideas more simply because he had the only authorial figures that you could recognize: a gun and a dick.

Not only that, you lack the abstract thinking skills to weave together a pattern among all these ideas. While your concrete thinking skill only allows you to mimic only my words, without you forming anything convincing, cognitive, critical, or original to say.

Outspoken, out-thought, and outmatched. The only way for you to out compete me is for you to do what Che did with his oppositions; silence the opposition's voice with a gun.


Of course, there are millions of people who's better than Che, can't say someone perfect just because he did something dramatically to whole country. I respect him because of his capability through words and actions to reality for the sake of his people. I 'd prefer to talk all of your bloody research directly with you understanding the whole concept of people you referenced with, can't be helped if you individuality prevent you for doing so. Talking about completely different matter to avoid the topic is just usual things people will do when they can't prove their point, moreover several ad hominem.



.Sorry for interrupting. Just one question to Dom: what is your own personal opinion about Che? And one suggestion: try learning another european language (besides english), there are tons of non - english books and thoughts from great people that are not translated (your links are great, but all those people are from western america, or had their education there). My point is, they received same basics, with different flavors. And please, dont take this as an attack on your personality. It is just advice.

On topic: I think that che had great ideas, and he tried to make them happen with the best means he had AT THE TIME. Now, 40 years later, of course we know better, but look, the rest of the world was doing the same thing he did. AT THE TIME: The same thing and movements were happening or were existing with more or less success in Greece, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland. His movement was just more successful then others. And was Cuba really better before che? With american - italian mobsters running casinos, corruption, etc?

And please excuse my english, by I have french exam in few hours so... au revoir!
Posted 2/11/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That all these figures of authority in their own scientific rights all have better ideas than Che's could ever had in his lifetime. And yet you respect his ideas more simply because he had the only authorial figures that you could recognize: a gun and a dick.

Not only that, you lack the abstract thinking skills to weave together a pattern among all these ideas. While your concrete thinking skill only allows you to mimic only my words, without you forming anything convincing, cognitive, critical, or original to say.

Outspoken, out-thought, and outmatched. The only way for you to out compete me is for you to do what Che did with his oppositions; silence the opposition's voice with a gun.


Of course, there are millions of people who's better than Che, can't say someone perfect just because he did something dramatically to whole country. I respect him because of his capability through words and actions to reality for the sake of his people. I 'd prefer to talk all of your bloody research directly with you understanding the whole concept of people you referenced with, can't be helped if you individuality prevent you for doing so. Talking about completely different matter to avoid the topic is just usual things people will do when they can't prove their point, moreover several ad hominem.
And the irony is the fact that you're the one that's attacking only my individuality, whereas I OTOH still managed to focus on you and your perspective about Che. Like how rebelliously you're only favoring Che's ideology and method, and disregarding his illogical behaviors of how mismatching his method to his ideals.


blancer wrote:Sorry for interrupting. Just one question to Dom: what is your own personal opinion about Che? And one suggestion: try learning another european language (besides english), there are tons of non - english books and thoughts from great people that are not translated (your links are great, but all those people are from western america, or had their education there). My point is, they received same basics, with different flavors. And please, dont take this as an attack on your personality. It is just advice.

On topic: I think that che had great ideas, and he tried to make them happen with the best means he had AT THE TIME. Now, 40 years later, of course we know better, but look, the rest of the world was doing the same thing he did. AT THE TIME: The same thing and movements were happening or were existing with more or less success in Greece, Germany, Italy, Spain and Ireland. His movement was just more successful then others. And was Cuba really better before che? With american - italian mobsters running casinos, corruption, etc?

And please excuse my english, by I have french exam in few hours so... au revoir!
Why should I just focus on the same language-based information? As in you have a mistaken principle of post-modernization is caused by disassociation of a particular language. Now talk about you being misleading, as if I need to learn Che's language in order for me to better understand his ideals. When that can only means Che's ideas don't have universal appeal because of some language barrier, not because he doesn't understand how the human mind works.
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 2/11/10

DomFortress wrote:

Why should I just focus on the same language-based information? As in you have a mistaken principle of post-modernization is caused by disassociation of a particular language. Now talk about you being misleading, as if I need to learn Che's language in order for me to better understand his ideals. When that can only means Che's ideas don't have universal appeal because of some language barrier, not because he doesn't understand how the human mind works.


What I meant was: there are tons of ideas which are not translated in english. That is all. And to read about them, you need to learn the language. I mean look at china for example: how much of their literature was exposed to the world/translated in last 50 years? especially in english - spoken countries. And yes, sometimes you really need to understand the language to know the concept, because language exists to define concepts, not the other way around. just look at the meaning of the world democracy in ancient greek and today.
What other information sources do you mean when you say "Why should I just focus on the same language-based information?"

Well his ideals are universal (freedom, for example). But he saw that freedom different from you, or me. And he thought it was good, and something which is worth fighting for. I dont really think that he was evil, and he did what he did just to make people suffer. And his followers believed in him, and there are people who believe in him still. Not what he did, but what he represented.
Posted 2/11/10

blancer wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Why should I just focus on the same language-based information? As in you have a mistaken principle of post-modernization is caused by disassociation of a particular language. Now talk about you being misleading, as if I need to learn Che's language in order for me to better understand his ideals. When that can only means Che's ideas don't have universal appeal because of some language barrier, not because he doesn't understand how the human mind works.


What I meant was: there are tons of ideas which are not translated in english. That is all. And to read about them, you need to learn the language. I mean look at china for example: how much of their literature was exposed to the world/translated in last 50 years? especially in english - spoken countries. And yes, sometimes you really need to understand the language to know the concept, because language exists to define concepts, not the other way around. just look at the meaning of the world democracy in ancient greek and today.
What other information sources do you mean when you say "Why should I just focus on the same language-based information?"

Well his ideals are universal (freedom, for example). But he saw that freedom different from you, or me. And he thought it was good, and something which is worth fighting for. I dont really think that he was evil, and he did what he did just to make people suffer. And his followers believed in him, and there are people who believe in him still. Not what he did, but what he represented.
Do I actually need you to remind me about my own ethnic culture? Which BTW I have perfect access to it because unlike yourself, I can read Chinese fluently. Not only that, I can criticize the culture itself because I can see its flaws and lack of perception better than you do. When I prize myself being a member of humanity first and foremost, not just limiting myself to a single ethnicity with a localized culture.

Not only that, your unnatural focus on language-based information alone, had blind-sided you from reading other people's intention from their behaviors. Which in this case if Che's ideas are so great and revolutionary, then why is it that he and his supporters still behaved the exact same way as their equally violent oppositions?
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 2/11/10

DomFortress wrote:


blancer wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Why should I just focus on the same language-based information? As in you have a mistaken principle of post-modernization is caused by disassociation of a particular language. Now talk about you being misleading, as if I need to learn Che's language in order for me to better understand his ideals. When that can only means Che's ideas don't have universal appeal because of some language barrier, not because he doesn't understand how the human mind works.


What I meant was: there are tons of ideas which are not translated in english. That is all. And to read about them, you need to learn the language. I mean look at china for example: how much of their literature was exposed to the world/translated in last 50 years? especially in english - spoken countries. And yes, sometimes you really need to understand the language to know the concept, because language exists to define concepts, not the other way around. just look at the meaning of the world democracy in ancient greek and today.
What other information sources do you mean when you say "Why should I just focus on the same language-based information?"

Well his ideals are universal (freedom, for example). But he saw that freedom different from you, or me. And he thought it was good, and something which is worth fighting for. I dont really think that he was evil, and he did what he did just to make people suffer. And his followers believed in him, and there are people who believe in him still. Not what he did, but what he represented.
Do I actually need you to remind me about my own ethnic culture? Which BTW I have perfect access to it because unlike yourself, I can read Chinese fluently. Not only that, I can criticize the culture itself because I can see its flaws and lack of perception better than you do. When I prize myself being a member of humanity first and foremost, not just limiting myself to a single ethnicity with a localized culture.

Not only that, your unnatural focus on language-based information alone, had blind-sided you from reading other people's intention from their behaviors. Which in this case if Che's ideas are so great and revolutionary, then why is it that he and his supporters still behaved the exact same way as their equally violent oppositions?


That is exactly what I mean! I don't, because I cant read chinese! Just like I didn't had access to many other stuff I wanted to know during colledge, but which was not translated.
And yes, I am philosopher by profession (at least its what it says on my MA ), so by default I am focused on written word, since it is my basic source of information. I wont argue anything else, since I stated my opinions about the topic (Che). night!
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/11/10 , edited 2/11/10

DomFortress wrote:


Ryutai-Desk wrote:

Talking about completely different matter to avoid the topic is just usual things people will do when they can't prove their point, moreover several ad hominem.


And the irony is the fact that you're the one that's attacking only my individuality, whereas I OTOH still managed to focus on you and your perspective about Che. Like how rebelliously you're only favoring Che's ideology and method, and disregarding his illogical behaviors of how mismatching his method to his ideals.



Really hypocrite, everyone knows who was talking out off topic.
Posted 2/11/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Ryutai-Desk wrote:

Talking about completely different matter to avoid the topic is just usual things people will do when they can't prove their point, moreover several ad hominem.


And the irony is the fact that you're the one that's attacking only my individuality, whereas I OTOH still managed to focus on you and your perspective about Che. Like how rebelliously you're only favoring Che's ideology and method, and disregarding his illogical behaviors of how mismatching his method to his ideals.



Really hypocrite, everyone knows who was talking out off topic.
What's the matter? Don't you feel like talking about Che anymore? What about the fact that he still behaved the same as the rest of his oppositions? That he's no better than the ones he killed, thereby he didn't make any difference after all.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/11/10

DomFortress wrote:

What's the matter? Don't you feel like talking about Che anymore? What about the fact that he still behaved the same as the rest of his oppositions? That he's no better than the ones he killed, thereby he didn't make any difference after all.


I have posted my points many times, it might better if you re-read again.

He was a 'hero' for poor people and a 'terrorist' for rich people. He was a worldwide symbol for revolution and a leader of insurgency groups against corrupt governments. I don't know much about the situation in South America countries at that time, but I heard the people were really poor and always being treated like minorities, even they are much larger in terms of number but were really weak to oppose armed government. He was a soul that could raise the life hope of weak people to stand and rise against side what they believe is wrong and evil within their enemy. He was a light that guided weak people to be strong and proud to achieve the dream.

He dreamt about equality of the people and justice for all. Trying to crush the iron wall of rich and poor that has widen, thicker than any rich people can't imagine. Starting from Argentina, across the south continent, he struggled to achieved his utopia, spreading his belief about how corrupt the governments was and how evil the colonialism and capitalism. However to achieve such big dreams, he shed blood of his comrades than he had imagined. To break down the tyranny of money and oppression, there is nothing that he can do beside shed more tears and blood for years, that might much better rather than being poor and oppressed eternally.

At last, he succeed to achieve his dream. The dream of freedom and equal environment without fear being discriminated as Cubans, the ex-oppressed humans who are now able to stand on their own feet.

Sir Che was able to give courage to oppressed and weak people to stand and fight against military regimes that stronger in terms of weapon. The struggle that will change their way of live. If they didn't put on weapon to fight, the Cubans and major South America are probably poorer than Africa which Imperialism from big nations control the business that only bring benefit to their home country and bribe the dictator.

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.

Yeah, Che was the one who taught his people to look upon the bright future which was always been a pointless things to do when they were under the imperialism. Che inspired people to break the unbreakable and do the impossible to gain their happiness through freedom and equally by looking at the bright side of future humanity.

The fact about Cuban government today is really contradict your words. They have been maintaining stability and have a great health facility to be accessed to all people, even though they are overseas people. They even treated Americans which was the enemy of Cuba's people at that time. The environment which not looking down or discriminate to others was what Che's dreamed, which means harmony between humanity.
Posted 2/11/10

Ryutai-Desk wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

What's the matter? Don't you feel like talking about Che anymore? What about the fact that he still behaved the same as the rest of his oppositions? That he's no better than the ones he killed, thereby he didn't make any difference after all.


I have posted my points many times, it might better if you re-read again.

He was a 'hero' for poor people and a 'terrorist' for rich people. He was a worldwide symbol for revolution and a leader of insurgency groups against corrupt governments. I don't know much about the situation in South America countries at that time, but I heard the people were really poor and always being treated like minorities, even they are much larger in terms of number but were really weak to oppose armed government. He was a soul that could raise the life hope of weak people to stand and rise against side what they believe is wrong and evil within their enemy. He was a light that guided weak people to be strong and proud to achieve the dream.

He dreamt about equality of the people and justice for all. Trying to crush the iron wall of rich and poor that has widen, thicker than any rich people can't imagine. Starting from Argentina, across the south continent, he struggled to achieved his utopia, spreading his belief about how corrupt the governments was and how evil the colonialism and capitalism. However to achieve such big dreams, he shed blood of his comrades than he had imagined. To break down the tyranny of money and oppression, there is nothing that he can do beside shed more tears and blood for years, that might much better rather than being poor and oppressed eternally.

At last, he succeed to achieve his dream. The dream of freedom and equal environment without fear being discriminated as Cubans, the ex-oppressed humans who are now able to stand on their own feet.

Sir Che was able to give courage to oppressed and weak people to stand and fight against military regimes that stronger in terms of weapon. The struggle that will change their way of live. If they didn't put on weapon to fight, the Cubans and major South America are probably poorer than Africa which Imperialism from big nations control the business that only bring benefit to their home country and bribe the dictator.


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.

Yeah, Che was the one who taught his people to look upon the bright future which was always been a pointless things to do when they were under the imperialism. Che inspired people to break the unbreakable and do the impossible to gain their happiness through freedom and equally by looking at the bright side of future humanity.

The fact about Cuban government today is really contradict your words. They have been maintaining stability and have a great health facility to be accessed to all people, even though they are overseas people. They even treated Americans which was the enemy of Cuba's people at that time. The environment which not looking down or discriminate to others was what Che's dreamed, which means harmony between humanity.
And once again, you're sounding like a broken record.

Let me breakdown your same old pathetic lies in lights of new evidences. First up, your false representation of the Cuban health care. When the reality is telling a different story altogether:

Next up, your claim that Che had "inspired his people". When all he ever did was numbed them from the oppression of one military regime to another(citation).

And the fact that he failed to consider the poor who are happy with their life, as well as the rich who aren't happy at all. For he never thought about bridging the gaps between those people, shows that he lacks careful consideration and compassion to all.

Speaking of corruption and bribery. When the Cuban state government is the sole employer of its people, the illegal black market operation is the redistribution of wealth(citation). The irony is that when the Cuban military government officials became the only social rich by them employing the poor Cubans, the people ended up stealing from the government in order to make ends' meet.

So in the end, Che was a fool with an attitude. Not only did he lacked careful thinking and planning, he was used as a puppet to usher another military regime by the Castro Brothers. Because just like his limited aim was sat out to be, he couldn't bring equality and justice to all, when he aimed to be just a hero to some and a terrorist to rest.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 2/11/10

DomFortress wrote:

And once again, you're sounding like a broken record.

Let me breakdown your same old pathetic lies in lights of new evidences. First up, your false representation of the Cuban health care. When the reality is telling a different story altogether:

Next up, your claim that Che had "inspired his people". When all he ever did was numbed them from the oppression of one military regime to another(citation).

And the fact that he failed to consider the poor who are happy with their life, as well as the rich who aren't happy at all. For he never thought about bridging the gaps between those people, shows that he lacks careful consideration and compassion to all.

Speaking of corruption and bribery. When the Cuban state government is the sole employer of its people, the illegal black market operation is the redistribution of wealth(citation). The irony is that when the Cuban military government officials became the only social rich by them employing the poor Cubans, the people ended up stealing from the government in order to make ends' meet.

So in the end, Che was a fool with an attitude. Not only did he lacked careful thinking and planning, he was used as a puppet to usher another military regime by the Castro Brothers. Because just like his limited aim was sat out to be, he couldn't bring equality and justice to all, when he aimed to be just a hero to some and a terrorist to rest.


Let's see the Cuba's health from different perspectives and its contribution to the world in this article written from a person who had visited Cuba to observe its health care system directly. Via Yes!Magazine

.

The fact that current Cuba's military were not under direct commands of Che Guevara are not related to people's movement at Che's time. I was regarding to Che Guevara's movement not to Castro's brother who's only fought alongside with Che. If Che still alive, he will be implementing the Equality and Freedom correctly. What Fidel did and Raul doing might not represent Che's ideology. Che was shot dead when he was still young, if you haven't know it.

Please read your links again before you post to prove your points because a careless links would backfired your arguments as you tend to shown it again.

Companies enjoying any success in Cuba have partnered with savvy locals who guide them through the dense, opaque bureaucracy. Such companies must convince the government that they are there for the long haul. They cultivate relationships and, invariably, they sponsor charity cigar auctions or kids’ “go-kart” rallies. But, by all reports from many sources, they don’t pay bribes.

This was surprising. Robert Klitgaard says that a centralized government with a great deal of discretion and a low level of accountability will be a playground for bribe seekers. We went to Cuba expecting rampant bribery, but we didn’t find it.

We did hear about widespread, low-level, non-threatening demands from policemen and officials, but they sounded more wistful than threatening: “I haven’t had a cup of coffee yet today…” one policeman said. Some people pay and others decline. Declining seems to bring no consequences. Middle level employees of state-owned joint ventures had reputations that were a little worse. As for bribery higher up the chain, we heard it was rare.

All I can see and read from both the fact brought by your sources and mines are both clearly shown how Cubans has work its function as a state for its people and the people who've been supporting the state. As the Cubans people said themselves regarding to their assistance :
Via Yes!Magazine


How do the Cuban people feel about using their country's resources for international medical missions? Those I asked responded with some version of this: We Cubans have big hearts. We are proud that we can share what we have with the world's poor.

“All we ask for in return is solidarity,” Dr. Ceballos says.

“Solidarity” has real-world implications. Before Cuba sent doctors to Pakistan, relations between the two countries were not great, Ceballos says.


Those investments in health care missions “are resources that prevent confrontation with other nations,” Ceballos explains. “The solidarity with Cuba has restrained aggressions of all kinds.” And in a statement that acknowledges Cuba's vulnerabilities on the global stage, Ceballos puts it this way: “It's infinitely better to invest in peace than to invest in war.”

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.