nope ;-) what make s you think so.... i m not even a kiddo 8-)
just talking about the state the templar s are in...
You have to understand that strategus is a clan based game and everything you do in it is for the better of your clan not yourself. Also if your in a clan and a higher ranking member ask you to do something its normally for the best to just do it since it is for a good cause.
Actually this really.
To be honest until everyone has a much higher armour level, those bodkins would have helped your clan a lot more then some outrageously expensive flamberges and such. You are not supposed to craft stuff for your own personal use, but stuff that your clan as a whole can use (such as ammunition which is priceless right now).
So suck it up, be a team player or get out of strategus... Or become an indie bandit...
I would have kicked you out too. Clans are for teamwork and socializing, and you failed to fulfill one of those two rather well.
Actually this really.
To be honest until everyone has a much higher armour level, those bodkins would have helped your clan a lot more then some outrageously expensive flamberges and such. You are not supposed to craft stuff for your own personal use, but stuff that your clan as a whole can use (such as ammunition which is priceless right now).
So suck it up, be a team player or get out of strategus... Or become an indie bandit...
I would have kicked you out too. Clans are for teamwork and socializing, and you failed to fulfill one of those two rather well.
Are u going to cry now???Holy fukken shit !
KID. :rolleyes:
You have to understand that strategus is a clan based game and everything you do in it is for the better of your clan not yourself. Also if your in a clan and a higher ranking member ask you to do something its normally for the best to just do it since it is for a good cause.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Isn't it weird though, that a clan leader is publicly hating on another clan? Thought even the worst sportsmen wouldn't diss complete clans for no reason in general discussion.
Oh and as i m German i can tell, opression will not keep ppl at bay forever, that s why socialism didn t work out ;-) kiss
Please rename the thread you have misspelled Templar wrong. You should at least know how to spell your clan's name you have been in the clan longer than I have ....
How can you misspell a word wrong? Is that like a double negative, actually meaning he spelled it correctly?
I dont have an opinion in your argument, but: Socialism works fine, but since for socialism to function it requires the entirety of a community to take part in it, there has yet to be ANY socialism...
Socialism never works well because there are always individuals that are more talented, intelligent and ambitious and others less so. Human nature being what it is, people wish to be recognized and rewarded for their effort and the merit of their contribution. They do not wish to support lazy and unproductive people when everyone shares equally in the rewards but not in the work.
And we never will have "true" socialism, because it's an ideology that doesn't take into account human nature. You have the wrong sort of creature in humans if you think "socialism" is an achievable or even desirable thing. Which is why the first step in any of the countries that HAVE tried it has always been a so-called transition period that ends up stretching out and never reaching completion, because completion is simply impossible.
Humans are social creatures, true, but they are also independent individuals.
Talk about drivel. That's like saying all the world must be capitalist for capitalism to work. It's a non-sequitur. The reason it has never worked is because it is unworkable by it's very nature, for the reasons stated....Your quite foolish:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
Winston Churchill
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Winston Churchill
"Socialism is the same as Communism, only better English."
George Bernard Shaw
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Alexis de Tocqueville
Hardly purveyors of drivel, and with the exception of de Tocqueville, they are quite recent observers. Even though de Tocqueville was writing in the 18th century, that does not invalidate his observations on the basic nature of socialism.
Turkhammer, don't confuse socialism that you see in western capitalistic countries today with big S Socialism, which is basically communism. Pure unbridled social darwinian Capitalism is just as unrealistic and unsuitable to humanity, and like Socialism never has and never will exist. They're abstract ideological constructs.
Capitalism as it is practiced now is the "fairest" way of wealth-distribution that we have. The most attractive thing about it is the meritocracy aspect. But I've seen way too many people who are huge capitalism proponents who think "fair" is a dirty word, which just goes to show they don't even understand what they support.
Blind Guy, you sure like to toss around insults, as if that reinforces your arguments. Typical of small minded people.
That is your interpretation of what Shaw meant. Anything that equates socialism with communism damns socialism.
Churchill may have been conservative but that does not mean he was wrong about socialism.
My basic point at the beginning of this discussion was that socialism as proposed by Marx is bound to fail because it does not take account of human nature. That is because it advocates state ownership of the means of production and REDISTRIBUTION of wealth. The only way to achieve that is to tax the productive and support the non-productive.
If you wish to continue with the ad hominem attacks and insults you can kindly go fuck yourself.
Wtf happened in this thread?
Hardly purveyors of drivel, and with the exception of de Tocqueville, they are quite recent observers. Even though de Tocqueville was writing in the 18th century, that does not invalidate his observations on the basic nature of socialism.Although, as leader of the Conservative Party, Churchill can't really be expected to be an unbiased source on the subject...
Although, as leader of the Conservative Party, Churchill can't really be expected to be an unbiased source on the subject...