Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: peterv on April 10, 2009, 12:30:16 pm
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism
Looks like that Socialism slowly occupies both US and EU and specific categories of the population (golden boys and girls) are already benefit from it.
-
It's a shame it doesn't matter what American adults think. It matters whether one works better than the other or not.
-
How stupidly set up is that poll and how stupidly it's interpreted?
Most people (I hope) have enough sense to realize that neither extremety works particularly well. Freedom of property is quite an important thing to all of us, so we need that from capitalism. But capitalism needs socialism to balance all the glaring issues it has.
Condensed:
The problem of capitalism is that it by definition prefers capital, meaning that majority of people end up in a ****ty position that is really difficult to get away from, which results in (you guess it) class society in one form or another.
The problem of socialism (particularly the revolutionary communist version and especially stalinism) is that everyone is equal, except the party leaders are a bit more equal than others... and the result is that everyone ends up equally ****ty (except party leaders who are more equal than the rest).
Historically, comparing both extremities is an exercise in futility because there are very limited amount of examples of pure capitalism and pure socialism. IMHO the days of unregulated capitalism ended when the first working conditions agreements were made, and socialism has been divided to revolutionary and non-revolutionary since it's inception. Well, revolutionary communism has historically not worked out too well (apart from Cuba and North Korea and (nominally) China they have just abandoned that model. And of course there's nothing social about North Korea, and there is no purely capitalist country in the world (although People's Republic of China might be pretty close, ironically enough).
USA is more socialist country than China.
You might want to take a look at countries that have successfully combined features of socialism and capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_welfare_model) and how they compare with other countries.
TL;DR - There's no real way whatsoever to compare socialism and capitalism in a "which is better" competition. There are no examples of either.
-
The USA isn't acting particularly capitalist right now, which is probably skewing the impression.
-
You're right- The US has been a welfare state for the rich for a long time.
-
TL;DR - There's no real way whatsoever to compare socialism and capitalism in a "which is better" competition. There are no examples of either.
Which isn't to say that one way doesn't work better than the other, just that we'll never find out.
-
I'm all for capitalism. In an ideal capitalist society ( :lol: ), people rise throught their merits and abilities. However, that's ideally. What we have here is a mess.
As for communism, well, Einstien has a quote relating to that: "There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of an unequal."
-
I'm all for capitalism. In an ideal capitalist society ( :lol: ), people rise throught their merits and abilities. However, that's ideally. What we have here is a mess.
As for communism, well, Einstien has a quote relating to that: "There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of an unequal."
You forgot something: In an ideal capitalist society, everyone starts out the same way, and has the same chance to rise as far as his or her ability allows. Reality works a bit differently, unfortunately.
-
The reason for this is actually kinda simply (in my opinion only!)
For years, the far right conservatives have labeled anything they don't like "socialist".
Clinton was socialist, Obama was (is?) tax plans, budgets, programs, it's all socialist!
Now the economy is in the crapper, the Democrats (aka socialists) are in power trying to fix it and things are going... alright? (reserves the right to change in 5 minutes)
So I think the reason for this socialist rise in the country is the far right who used it as a bogeyman constantly that now it's lost the sting it once had.
-
As for communism, well, Einstien has a quote relating to that: "There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of an unequal."
Yeah, and socialism does not equal communism. That's probably the most common mistake people make about socialism, it just starts ringing red alert in their heads... even though communism was just basically the revolutionary branch of socialism.
Basically, when socialism was constructed by Marx, Engels et al, some thought that it was simply not possible to enact the new ideas without a complete revolution of the system, that the capitalist pigs in control of every place would never let that happen.
Well, in Imperial Russia the bolsheviks (who thought revolution was necessary) won the internal squabble with mensheviks (who basically were proposing social reforms through legislative channels in the existing system), and the rest is history, and socialism become communism (and stalinism) for so long time that it was damn easy for J. Edgar Hoover et al to use it as the boogeyman much like the Bush administration used terrorism (with the exception that the threat of terrorism might have been slightly more real).
On the other hand, in places like Finland, social reforms did eventually happen without a revolution - although one was attempted; it also has many names and interpretations (independence war, liberty war, class war, red rebellion amongst others) but basically it did not end in communist revolution ("red" side "lost" more than the "white" side in that conflict). Despite this, social reforms were being done in Finland and they didn't end in the failed revolution (which likely would have also made Finland a Soviet Socialist Republic of Finland eventually).
So, it can be posited that the revolutionary branch of socialism is more of a failure than the non-revolutionary form that reforms the society through legal means.
It might not be a great surprise that a society based on violent change of leadership and social structures fails to last... :rolleyes:
-
Meh. Benevolent Dictatorship > all.
-
Culture-ish anarchy FTW!
-
Down with the patricians!
Let the Struggle of the Orders (re)commence!
-
It might not be a great surprise that a society based on violent change of leadership and social structures fails to last... :rolleyes:
French revolution? American revolution? Unless that what we are seeing now is their own failure.
(Also, in general, i agree with you)
-
French revolution? American revolution?
The revolutions in all those African countries? There are exceptions to every rule, though granted not many in this case.
-
Chinese Civil War? We are talking about more than 1/3 of the modern world already.
-
French revolution? American revolution?
The revolutions in all those African countries? There are exceptions to every rule, though granted not many in this case.
But the African countries have been at it for decades (on and off)
-
Chinese Civil War? We are talking about more than 1/3 of the modern world already.
To be fair, that was played out against the backdrop of the Japanese invasion in its opening parts...and a good argument can be made that the Communists won it because the Nationalists were fighting the Japanese. The opposition had already exhausted its resources and will to fight on a different opponent.
-
Of course, all polls disregard the fact that 90% of Americans are mind-numbingly stupid.
-
To be fair, that was played out against the backdrop of the Japanese invasion in its opening parts...and a good argument can be made that the Communists won it because the Nationalists were fighting the Japanese.
It's a very complicated story. Don't forget that major parts of Chiang Kai-Shek's troops defected to the communists during critical batles of the war.
-
Chinese Civil War? We are talking about more than 1/3 of the modern world already.
To be fair, that was played out against the backdrop of the Japanese invasion in its opening parts...and a good argument can be made that the Communists won it because the Nationalists were fighting the Japanese. The opposition had already exhausted its resources and will to fight on a different opponent.
Just a few years prior to the Japanese invasion everyone was still fighting for there own little piece of China. One even succeeded in self-proclaiming himself Emperor.... for an extremely short time.
It's not hard to see that everything just collapsed on itself. That's when communism starts to take its hold.
-
It's not hard to see that everything just collapsed on itself. That's when communism starts to take its hold.
No. That's when charismatic leaders, who can convince large numbers of people that they have a PlanTM that works take a hold. Communists aren't the only ones who play that particular game.
-
No. That's when charismatic leaders, who can convince large numbers of people that they have a PlanTM that works take a hold. Communists aren't the only ones who play that particular game.
That's when charismatic leaders, who can convince large numbers of desperate people that they have a Plan...
And i asure you, i'm not a communist :pimp:
-
Before we all gawk at how successful China is now, why don't we take a look back into the 1950s and 1960s:
In 1959, Mao Zedong stepped down as chairman because his "Great Leap Forward" had caused literally millions of deaths of starvation. Then, in 1966, we see the cultural revolution.
I'm actually gonna say that China's revolution wasn't all that successful.
-
It's things like this that make you wonder why Mikhail Gorbachev was forced to quit.
-
It might not be a great surprise that a society based on violent change of leadership and social structures fails to last... :rolleyes:
French revolution? American revolution? Unless that what we are seeing now is their own failure.
(Also, in general, i agree with you)
Oh you gotta be kidding about the French Revolution... The French revolution (which one??) was a series of revolutions that (according to the most common definition) lasted about ten years and didn't really lead to anything except perhaps laying some basis for a possibility of France as a mostly democratic republic... Before and after, it was just people cutting the heads off from the previous rulers at intervals of few dozen years at best, and none of the violently established governments really lasted for too long. After the Legislative Assembly, it's failure and a short war, the National Convention took over and executed the monarch, and pretty much started a reign of terror that lasted for about three years.
After that the French Directory (First Republic) was in power for about four years, and then Napoleon established a consulate instead of it and took over as the First Consul, and afterward become the Emperor of France. The Napoleon was finally defeated for realz in 1815 and they established a constitutional monarchy, which didn't last for long because in 1830, there was a civil uprising that established the Second Republic, which was overturned by Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte proclaiming himself emperor of the Second Empire in 1852 Louis-Napoleon got defeated in Franco-Prussian* war of 1870 and the Second Empire was finally replaced by Third Republic, which amazingly enough lasted until 1940 German invasion and managed to establish itself well enough that after WW2, France remained a democracy.
So, yeah. Thanks for making my point for me. :p
The American Revolution on the other hand was more of an independence war than internal revolution; Americans (if such identity existed at the time, could be called colonials I guess) were fighting against their British overlords, and if history has taught me anything it is that a common threat makes it easy to unite people if you know which strings to pull (whether or not the threat is real or perceived doesn't matter). This meant that when the enemy was defeated, americans stood (for the time being) united, and that made it possible to establish the social structures themselves without too much violence or leaving grudges in the mind of the nation (the Civil War took care of that).
On Finland it happened the other way round - we had our civil/independence war first and then got into a fight with common enemy (Soviets) which very effectively glued the Finnish nation together regardless of any former red/white division.
African ongoing cycles of rebellions and revolutions are another very good example of this. South America as well a few decades ago, althoughthat region has thankfully calmed down somewhat (although there's no way to know when it starts again).
*note that in a way it took an external threat to make the French form a sustainable form of government in a manner that didn't make them hate and despise "the other French" like the previous revolutions had habitually done.
-
Capitalist society = raising yourself from whatever circumstances you started with to something better, depending on what your capabilities and drive/desire is. A person can be born to poverty and become a millionaire if they work for it. If you want X property, then you do what it takes to get it.
Socialist society = everyone living, by choice or by force, at the some ambiguous "sustainable" level. No one's rich, there's no social drive to work. There is no reason for citizen A to work for anything because the government provides everything. As more people are born into the system, the "sustainable" level slowly degrades until everyone is living in poverty. It's happened in every socialist state ever seen on the face of the earth. From the early American colonies to the "almighty" USSR and China. It doesn't work, it can never work, simply because it doesn't account for basic human nature in it's design. Human's are greedy, self-centered people till they're needs are met. Once that occurs they're usually more than happy to share what they have more of, but they dislike being told what and how much to share.
-
Once that occurs they're usually more than happy to share what they have more of
Wrong.
Humans are even more greedy then that. You think those bank executives were just giving away their money? They protested having a $500000 cap on their salaries because they apparently couldn't live off of it.
Pure Capitalism fails because Trickle Down Economics fails. Whenever anyone says "Trickle Down Economics" I look at how 90% of our wealth is in the top 10% of the population and go suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. As most anyone with half a brain in this thread has pointed out, neither system works, and so the best economy is one that combines both ideas in varying ratios of each other. American's are just brainwashed into rallying for pure capitalism without any of them having a goddamn clue about what the f-ck they're actually TALKING about, except that its patriotic and socially acceptable.
I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but I mean it when I say that a frightening number of Americans are goddamned sheep.
Most politicians want to get elected, not save the world. This is why democrats vehemently deny any accusations of socialistic policies while the republicans scream apocalyptic prophesies from those evil socialist democrats (some of the racist nutjobs point at a minority president as being a sign of the end of our civilization), even after many of those republicans supported the same goddamn kinds of bills when they had the majority!
Rich people like to hold on to their money - and more importantly, make even more. I quote The Matrix: "What do all men with power want? More power." There are exceptions - Google execs, Warren Buffet, etc. But as the economic news as of late has proven, the vast majority of them are just rich bastards who won't ever have enough money. EVER.
That is why we need regulated capitalism.
-
All this discussion has proved so far is that most people don't have a clue what socialism is.
Funnily enough those with the least clue are the ones shouting loudest against it.
-
The USA isn't acting particularly capitalist right now, which is probably skewing the impression.
Privitizing profits, socializing losses.
To be fair, that was played out against the backdrop of the Japanese invasion in its opening parts...and a good argument can be made that the Communists won it because the Nationalists were fighting the Japanese. The opposition had already exhausted its resources and will to fight on a different opponent.
I'm sure the massive corruption (where do you think those billions of dollars in american aid went to?), hyper inflation, and general incompetance had something to do with it too.
-
Trickle down economics works as thus:
Businessman A creates a successful business, selling used gumballs or something, he's so successful that he makes a million dollars his first year. Now Businessman A is a greedy bastard, all them CEO's is a bunch of greedy bastards, donchaknow, and he wants to make more money. He researches the issue and determines that the best course of action would be to open another store. So, Mr. Businessman A sinks half his income from the first year into building a new store, hiring a staff, and buying more used gumballs for inventory. So at the end of the second year, he's down 500k. But here's where it get's interesting. That 500k he spent didn't disappear, it went into the coffers and wallets of the construction crew who built the building, and as payroll for the staff and to the people he bought the gumballs from. It trickled down through his business contacts and made other people wealthier in the process.
By your logic, the only way he'd be a good guy is if he spent everything he made. It doesn't make sense. If he had to spend everything he made to make you(the government) happy, what incentive does he have to either invest in a 2nd location or even open the first one?
My basic reason for disliking socialism is that I dislike the concept of someone telling me in no uncertain terms that I MUST give X group part of my income. What is the incentive? Better yet, how does the government know if they are worthy of my money? I'll make it personal, what if I came to you in your workplace and took 1/2 or 3/4 of your income on payday and arbitrarily decided that Joe Blow and His Mechanical Wonder Squad needed it because they were not working and needed food. If I did this every week, every month, every year, where is the incentive for JB and HMWS to get jobs and earn they're own money? If you get a check from a magical font of everlasting cash, why go to work where you might make less? Unlike the pie in the sky idealists who promote a broken ideal, 99% of people won't show up for a job because it improves them psychically or some other mental bull****, they show up for a paycheck to pay they're rent or buy they're groceries.
Look at places around the world where the government provides housing. They are gang warzones and slums for the most part. Because the people there have no incentive for it to be otherwise.
-
When I see people clamoring for some kind of socialist economy or government, I always want to tell them to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
-
Socialist society = everyone living, by choice or by force, at the some ambiguous "sustainable" level. No one's rich, there's no social drive to work.
That's communism, not socialism.
Businessman A creates a successful business, selling used gumballs or something, he's so successful that he makes a million dollars his first year. Now Businessman A is a greedy bastard, all them CEO's is a bunch of greedy bastards, donchaknow, and he wants to make more money. He researches the issue and determines that the best course of action would be to open another store.
If you account for inflation, the middle class income per man has stagtnated since the 70's while CEO's income has skyrocketed. Not that business is bad, but our system has become much too skewed towards the top end.
Better yet, how does the government know if they are worthy of my money?
Provide free healthcare and affordable universities?
-
When I see people clamoring for some kind of socialist economy or government, I always want to tell them to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
When I see people clamoring for any kind of extremities be it in economy or government, I always want to tell them to go boil their heads and remember to let the steam out. But I usually don't... maybe I should.
Seriously, it should be clear to anyone who has any modicum of historical knowledge of the world that extremism does not work. Neither in economy or politics.
IMHO the most important things that socialism offers to people is not some kind of ultimate economical equality but things like universal health care, education to some level (depending on country it could be free middle-level education, or like in Finland, university level education), stuff like that. Education should obviously be offered on equal standing on people from different backgrounds - it's obvious that those well off to begin with will have easier time getting the funds for their tuition and other costs related on studying. Which leads (again!) to a class structure (basically white-collar and blue-collar) and it's not really what I see as an ideal situation.
Social security is important too. Getting fired in time of economic trouble is way too random for people's abilities to truly matter in the majority of cases - even if you're the best one in your shift you can be laid off if the factory closes it's doors... so yeah, I do want to have some sort of safety net in case I can't find work, and I am in fact ready to pay for it in taxes when I'm working.
Then there are the labor unions of course, and things like working conditions (such as no putting workers into unsafe and unhealthy coal mines). In USA this would be unthinkable, yet in a "socialist" country (namely China) it's done routinely. How strange that US miners have better working conditions, even though things like that don't really belong to a capitalist economy model, eh?
Like Karajorma said, it's obvious that most people really, really don't know what the hell socialism is and the only association to it is "red" and "commies". Which are of course evul and bad because they are the enemy... oh wait.
It's not like socialism means that you are automatically hauled to some remote kolkhoz or sovkhoz to work your ass off for the common good and never getting nothing in return for your work. That's just soviet communism with all it's mismanagements.
-
So, yeah. Thanks for making my point for me. :p
You're more than welcome, especially for the history lesson, but unfortunatly this is a "thanks for nothing" case.
From Wiki (the most common definition): "The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of political and social upheaval and radical change in the history of France, during which the French governmental structure, previously an absolute monarchy with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and Catholic clergy, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles of citizenship and inalienable rights".
Furthermore, this particular revolution was the first of a series of violent events that established the modern social structures in Europe, that is why it's the most important of all. You can't study it as an individuall event, unless you really want to miss the big picture.
As for the American revolution, the fact that it was a war for independence doesn't make it less violent, neither the American civil war that followed. More or less bloody they were violent events.
Throughtout history, it's very hard to find a society that is not based on violent change of leadership and social structures. Only one comes to my mind and that's modern India, but according to your logic, one could easilly prove that the war for Casmir, for example, doesn't make it peacefull at all.
There's no such thing like peacefull changes of societies and most of all, leaderships in history.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution :P
-
Got me! Now how many examples of the opposite do you want me to report? :pimp:
-
Peterv, America has peaceful changes in leadership every time a new president is elected. So don't tell me it is impossible to change a country's leadership through nonviolent means.
-
I'm not talking about persons or politicall parties, i'm talking about politicall systems, the philosophy behind them. :)
-
The problem isn't the increasing difference of opinion, it's the increasing similarity of the options.
-
The problem isn't the increasing difference of opinion, it's the increasing similarity of the options.
Why are you doing this? ( :yes: :yes: :yes:)
I'm going out for a drink. ( :()
-
Trickle down economics works as thus:
Businessman A creates a successful business, selling used gumballs or something, he's so successful that he makes a million dollars his first year. Now Businessman A is a greedy bastard, all them CEO's is a bunch of greedy bastards, donchaknow, and he wants to make more money. He researches the issue and determines that the best course of action would be to open another store. So, Mr. Businessman A sinks half his income from the first year into building a new store, hiring a staff, and buying more used gumballs for inventory. So at the end of the second year, he's down 500k. But here's where it get's interesting. That 500k he spent didn't disappear, it went into the coffers and wallets of the construction crew who built the building, and as payroll for the staff and to the people he bought the gumballs from. It trickled down through his business contacts and made other people wealthier in the process.
hahahahaha
NO
You know where all that money goes? To the CEO of the company that's constructing the damn building. You know what all the workers get? Minimum wage. You just described what is supposed to happen. I'm telling you that in reality, all that happens is that money gets thrown around from one CEO to another and everyone else gets to fight over the leftovers. That's why it doesn't work.
As Kosh has pointed out, your description of Socialism is veerly wildly towards blatent communism, which as we have established over and over and over and OVER AGAIN, doesn't work, and no one is trying to say that it works. What I'm saying is that you may love your capitalism, but its f-cking you over. Hard. When people start saying we should distribute the wealth, everyone goes crazy because those rich bastards don't want to lose their money. We're not asking them to give up enormous sums of money, we're just asking them to please not have a salary that is more then the total liquid assets of their company, and then when they get fired, give themselves a severence package (I didn't make that up, it actually happened). When things like this are going on, the system needs more regulation because it is broken. The way it is supposed to work is not even close to reality.
-
The whole point that you are missing is that you are asking them to give up their money for you. Why the hell should they? What did you ever do for them, that warrants them just giving you or someone like you money?
When you penalize the rich for making too much money, you take away the incentive to make money in the first place. Why be rich when society is going to take from you what they haven't earned?
-
The whole point that you are missing is that you are asking them to give up their money for you. Why the hell should they? What did you ever do for them, that warrants them just giving you or someone like you money?
Why, I pay taxes from my own paycheck, even if it's smaller than their. Taxes that grant my country the ability to pay for services that they also benefit from, should they ever suffer from unlucky situations like economy taking a dip in the sewers and their business collapses and they lose their work, leasing car and house and their family ends up in a situation where they can't provide health care or edumacation for their kids and they die young and unhappy and desperate in the lower levels of homeless hell on earth.
Why should I give my money to them? Because I ruddy well wouldn't like to be in that situation and I want my country to be able to prevent that.
Considering the social structures of western civilization, it is also a necessity for any state to stay in operation. Same logic could obviously be applied to corporations - why should they pay taxes to the country? Well, because not everything is managed by corporations, and countries don't function strictly by same rules as business does - thankfully.
When you penalize the rich for making too much money, you take away the incentive to make money in the first place. Why be rich when society is going to take from you what they haven't earned?
That's a flawed argument. If you are rich, you can have more money to use for your self, even if you pay more taxes as well. Which means that having a high pay is desireable even if it has higher tax percentage.
Obviously in a case of stair-shaped progressive curve of the taxing it's possible that people just above a limit can get less money in their hands than the people immediately below a limit (example would be is there's a law that people who get less than 10000 dollars a month pay 20% taxes and those who get more than 10000 dollars a month pay 25%; that results in those who get 10001 dollars paying about 2500 dollars in taxes, while those who get 9999 dollars a month only pay about 2000 dollars a month, but a slightly more cleverly set progressive taxing would avoid that problem.
In a properly set up taxation system, bigger gross income leads to bigger net income.
But saying that progressive taxation "punishes the rich" and "removes the incentive to make money" is a fallacy. Say, if you have two people who earn 10000 dollars a month and 30000 dollars a month respectively. The first pays, let's say 20% taxes, the other pays 30%. The first person pays 2000 dollars taxes and ends up with 8000 dollars net worth of money. The other character pays 9000 dollars of taxes and ends up with 21000 dollars worth of money.
I would say that in this example there is plenty of benefit in earning more. Of course real life examples are likely different (with smaller wages and larger tax percentages) but this example does still prove the point. Progressive taxation does not remove incentive to make more money.
-
So you are telling me higher taxes aren't capable of dissuading people from doing things that are taxed? If sales taxes go up, people buy less. If property taxes go up, people buy less land. If income taxes go up, it reduces the incentive to make money. I really don't like "progressive" taxes. They punish the most productive people in the economy unfairly. A flat tax is fairer to everyone.
My big beef with socialism is that my money will be used to benefit someone who hasn't earned it. I don't want Joe Neighbor's health care getting paid for by me, and I don't want Joe Neighbor paying for my health care. I want to pay for stuff that I have earned. Things are always better if they are earned.
-
:eek2:
High Max and I agree on something! It's the end of the world!
-
:wtf: But he didn't post in this Thread, did he?
-
I'll give you a more "real" example of socialism.
New York City
There's something like 9 million people living in NYC. How many of that 9 million pay 90% of the tax burden? Something like 42,500. That means that the other 8,957,500 only have to cover 10% of the tax burden. Add to that, the city government wants to raise they taxes again. There are several prominent business people talking opening of leaving the city and taking they're business with them.
You can't demonize and demogogue "TEH FOOKING GREEDY BASTARD CEO'S" and expect them to put up with it. Why do CEO make so much money? They manage the entire company and try to make it profitable. Businesses exist to make money, even Banks, not to fund social experiments and programs mandated by whatever whacko happens to be in charge of the government. Once again, nice and loud where you can understand...
Businesses exist to make a profit.
For they're CEOs, Owners, Partners, ect. Take a course is General Business and you'll understand. :sigh:
-
Businesses exist to make a profit.
For they're CEOs, Owners, Partners, ect. Take a course is General Business and you'll understand. :sigh:
Shockingly enough, people don't really enjoy watching CEOs and owners walk away with all the money while the economy tanks.
"I'm only in it to make money, screw you" isn't really helping win hearts and minds of the people who get to decide the rules in times like this.
-
They manage the entire company and try to make it profitable.
The CEO of Bear Stearns ran the compnay into the ground, got millions of dollars in salaries and walked away with a $25 million golden parachute for failing. Why they are being rewarded for this is a total mystery.
not to fund social experiments and programs mandated by whatever whacko happens to be in charge of the government.
Take for example our healthcare system, at this point it is easily the most expensive in the world, and yet it is one of the least effective in the developed world.
Here's a question, should basic scientific research continue to be a socialized endeavor?
-
The CEO of Bear Stearns ran the compnay into the ground, got millions of dollars in salaries and walked away with a $25 million golden parachute for failing. Why they are being rewarded for this is a total mystery.
The bolded part is completely idiotic (not you, the principle).
Here's a question, should basic scientific research continue to be a socialized endeavor?
I'm gonna venture no. Competition is one of the driving factors of innovation. If two or more scientific firms compete with each other, the end result is usually quicker and more favorable than a socialized "oh, what's the rush" system.
-
Let's not forget that the CEO of Bear Stearns did something unethical, not illegal. You can, and should, dislike him for what he did, but you can't put him in prison for it unless you can prove to a jury that he did something illegal.
As far as the "Gilded Parachute" goes, it's in his contract. And you can't break a contract except under very specific circumstances, laid out ahead of time in the contract itself. If you want to make contracts worthless by making them breakable by the government or a judge or whatever, they lose they're power to bind two parties legally. If that happens, society just got a whole lot uglier.
-
.
-
I'm gonna venture no. Competition is one of the driving factors of innovation. If two or more scientific firms compete with each other, the end result is usually quicker and more favorable than a socialized "oh, what's the rush" system.
In reality, if it wasn't for our current "socialized" system of government there wouldn't have been any major breakthroughs at all. Take for example Bell Labs. During most of its existance, it was attached to AT&T, a state supported total monopoly. It never had to deal with any market pressures, and yet a whole host of things were invented and many important theories were drawn up (6 nobel prizes came out of it). Then AT&T was broken apart, and Bell Labs spun off. It struggled until finally ceasing to exist all together because market forces didn't allow it to exist.
Some libertarians and republicans say basic research shouldn't be government funded, but if it wasn't we'd fall behind since our companies sure as hell aren't doing it.
As far as the "Gilded Parachute" goes, it's in his contract. And you can't break a contract except under very specific circumstances, laid out ahead of time in the contract itself.
IIRC, exceptionally poor performance (in this case the failure of the company because of the person) is adequate justification for nullifying contracts. US employment laws are rather loose in that regard.
-
As far as the "Gilded Parachute" goes, it's in his contract. And you can't break a contract except under very specific circumstances, laid out ahead of time in the contract itself.
So your saying that its totally ok for a CEO to take advantage of a loophole in the law so he gets rewarded for failing?
Look, I don't have a problem with CEO's getting massive amounts of money if they EARN the right to that money. I'm totally fine with that. But we have CEOs running left and right and earning huge amounts of money that THEY DID NOT EARN. For that matter, these CEOs are getting paid disproportionate amounts of money in comparison to how much work they are doing. Are you telling me that in order to be motivated to do well, people need to make over 5000 times as much money as their workers? Is that kind of a chasm really necessary? You keep telling me that raising taxes or putting a few restraints on CEO pay is going to take away all the motivation anyone will have and throw our country into an apocalyptic meltdown, and I'm really just not seeing the logic behind this. Simply reducing the chasm doesn't mean it's going to vanish, and therefore we'll still have plenty of people with the motivation to make their own company, because you simply don't need 2 million dollars a year. To someone living off a $60000 college salary, a $600000 salary, 10 times as much as they make, is going to seem like a whole hell of a lot of money.
You are correct, businesses exist to make profit. That's why WE'RE IN A F-CKING DEPRESSION (Banks get greedy, find ways to give people bad credit more loans, get even greedier, give more people more bad loans, and oh oops we're in a depression!) Surely this is a wonderful thing!
Personally, I've got plans for my own little game company, and "money" isn't a primary motivating factor. Now at this point everyone likes to say "YOU FAIL AT EVERYTHING FOREVER >C" and call me an idiot, but there are several things wrong with that position. I said money wasn't my primary motivating factor, not that I wouldn't try to make the company profitable. A company requires a large profit margin, but that profit doesn't need to all get sucked into the CEO's paycheck. A CEO who wasn't a greedy bastard would realize that by reducing his salary by a significant amount, the company would have more assets and be able to pay its employees more generous salaries without affecting the apparent profit margin as much and thus attract more highly skilled workers which would allow for better products which would in turn increase profit etc. etc. etc. Greed may drive the creation of a company, but you can't exactly say that it helps.
But hey, you know what, if you like rewarding people for being GREEDY instead of rewarding people for running good companies, fine. Apparently that's capitalism.
F*CK
THAT
SH!T.
-
I don't want Joe Neighbor's health care getting paid for by me, and I don't want Joe Neighbor paying for my health care. I want to pay for stuff that I have earned. Things are always better if they are earned.
None of us have really earned what we have now. Look at the society around you, the complexity of its infrastructure and economy. Is that what you created? No, its what you are using. All that was built by countless generations before us - and many of them didn't get payed **** for it. Point being, the idea "I only pay for what I get" is dead to start with, because it won't sustain the society you get your income from.
-
As far as the "Gilded Parachute" goes, it's in his contract. And you can't break a contract except under very specific circumstances, laid out ahead of time in the contract itself.
So your saying that its totally ok for a CEO to take advantage of a loophole in the law so he gets rewarded for failing?
I didn't say it was OK or that I liked it, I said it was legal. Not right, not ethical, but legal.
Look, I don't have a problem with CEO's getting massive amounts of money if they EARN the right to that money. I'm totally fine with that. But we have CEOs running left and right and earning huge amounts of money that THEY DID NOT EARN. For that matter, these CEOs are getting paid disproportionate amounts of money in comparison to how much work they are doing.
Hmm, 16 hour days, 10 hour conference calls, never seeing your wife and kids. Sounds like work to me.
Are you telling me that in order to be motivated to do well, people need to make over 5000 times as much money as their workers? Is that kind of a chasm really necessary? You keep telling me that raising taxes or putting a few restraints on CEO pay is going to take away all the motivation anyone will have and throw our country into an apocalyptic meltdown, and I'm really just not seeing the logic behind thisIn order, yes, if someone at that level can't make appropriate compensation in the USA, they'll go else where. Would you work somewhere where the government comes in and says, "Oh you are a senior manager with 35 years experience, but we don't think you are important, so you are going to make less than the guy that comes and fixes your computer.". Simply reducing the chasm doesn't mean it's going to vanish, and therefore we'll still have plenty of people with the motivation to make their own company, because you simply don't need 2 million dollars a year. Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. That's not for you, me or the government to say. It's between the employer and the employee.To someone living off a $60000 college salary, a $600000 salary, 10 times as much as they make, is going to seem like a whole hell of a lot of money.Indeed, yes. Both are a lot of money. The difference is what do the people making that money do? Do they teach? salesperson? People aren't guaranteed the right to happiness, merely the right to pursue it. And it is the pursuit that makes the happiness at the end worth it.
You are correct, businesses exist to make profit. That's why WE'RE IN A F-CKING DEPRESSION (Banks get greedy, find ways to give people bad credit more loans, get even greedier, give more people more bad loans, and oh oops we're in a depression!) Surely this is a wonderful thing!
To be honest, it's not a depression yet. Where are the bread lines? The 25% unemployment? Oh, we're getting there, but not yet we're not there yet. As far as the banks getting greedy, yea there was some of that. But on a societal level, we've become addicted to credit. That little plastic thing in your wallet is a time bomb waited to blow up your life. Add to that certain parties within the government who are in charge of the regulatory atmosphere that banks/mortgage companies/ect. exist in, relaxed said regulation to fuel the economic boom of the last half dozen years to ensure that they're grasp on power wouldnt' be interupted.
Personally, I've got plans for my own little game company, and "money" isn't a primary motivating factor.Excellent, I expect The Next Big Thing from you one day. just bear in mind that the people you get your start up cash from will be looking for a return. Now at this point everyone likes to say "YOU FAIL AT EVERYTHING FOREVER >C" and call me an idiot, but there are several things wrong with that position. I said money wasn't my primary motivating factor, not that I wouldn't try to make the company profitable. A company requires a large profit margin, but that profit doesn't need to all get sucked into the CEO's paycheck. A CEO who wasn't a greedy bastard would realize that by reducing his salary by a significant amount, the company would have more assets and be able to pay its employees more generous salaries without affecting the apparent profit margin as much and thus attract more highly skilled workers which would allow for better products which would in turn increase profit etc. etc. etc. Greed may drive the creation of a company, but you can't exactly say that it helps. What I can say is that you are pissing on a wildfire if you think knocking a CEOs salary in half would solve the monetary problems of a company worth 30 billion dollars. I don't think you quite grasp the scale of the companies involved in this mess.
But hey, you know what, if you like rewarding people for being GREEDY instead of rewarding people for running good companies, fine. Apparently that's capitalism.
Capitalism isn't the best economic system, it's simply the most applicable to the human condition. I'm certain something will come along one day that will be better. I hope it does. I would love to see an economic system that allows all mankind to live as opulent or as spare a lifestyle as they desire, not some heartless inhuman entity, of which there are several I won't name, that wishes to see itself continue.
****
THAT
****.
Profanity has it's place, just not in a well reasoned discussion.
-
So you are telling me higher taxes aren't capable of dissuading people from doing things that are taxed?
You misunderstand me. I was saying that people still mostly want as much money as they can get. And increasing the income increases the amount of money they can use, even if they pay a larger percentage in taxes as well.
If sales taxes go up, people buy less. If property taxes go up, people buy less land. If income taxes go up, it reduces the incentive to make money. I really don't like "progressive" taxes. They punish the most productive people in the economy unfairly. A flat tax is fairer to everyone.
I disagree. Everyone needs income, and the more the better in most cases.
Saying that increasing income taxes reduce the inventive to make money is like saying increasing food prices reduce hunger.
My big beef with socialism is that my money will be used to benefit someone who hasn't earned it. I don't want Joe Neighbor's health care getting paid for by me, and I don't want Joe Neighbor paying for my health care. I want to pay for stuff that I have earned. Things are always better if they are earned.
I do not particularly have sympathies for leeches either, but you're missing the point here.
Joe Neighbour might be in a situation where he can't earn enough to pay for his health care.
Some day you might be in a position where you can't earn enough to pay for your health care.
Or your kids' education. Or your rent, or electricity, or internets or food for that matter.
And in your ideal society, all the kids whose parents can't earn enough to pay for health care and education, end up... what? Productive members of the society? Gimme a break. :ick:
No matter how good it might feel to know you've earned what you have, it doesn't remove that fact that sometimes people end up in situations where they can't earn enough, and most of the time it is without their own fault. Leeches are a minority. And if leeches end up profiting from necessary social programs, so be it.
I'll give you a more "real" example of socialism.
New York City
There's something like 9 million people living in NYC. How many of that 9 million pay 90% of the tax burden? Something like 42,500. That means that the other 8,957,500 only have to cover 10% of the tax burden. Add to that, the city government wants to raise they taxes again. There are several prominent business people talking opening of leaving the city and taking they're business with them.
Try and find out how many of that 9 million get the 90% of the income in the city.
Then try to figure out if the tax burden relying on so few is a reason or a consequence...
You can't demonize and demogogue "TEH FOOKING GREEDY BASTARD CEO'S" and expect them to put up with it. Why do CEO make so much money? They manage the entire company and try to make it profitable. Businesses exist to make money, even Banks, not to fund social experiments and programs mandated by whatever whacko happens to be in charge of the government. Once again, nice and loud where you can understand...
Businesses exist to make a profit.
For they're CEOs, Owners, Partners, ect. Take a course is General Business and you'll understand. :sigh:
Good point bolded in red.
Of course, "making money" is pretty hard in a sustainable economy because it either
a. involves creating more stuff with value that can be converted into money aka. sold (building new buildings, producing raw materials, building a nuclear power plant and maintaining it as it spins the turbines and convert energy into electricity)
b. involves manufacturing more money, which is problematic as it leads to increase of net amount of money in circulation and consequently leads to inflation
c. involves increasing the amount of money you control (which of course decreases the amount of money in control by others)
Normal businesses do the option a. in many and various ways; they produce something - raw materials, products or services, and sell them.
Federal Reserve does option b. in conjunction with the government; government asks for a loan, they give them the money that they print with the value of the money being the value of government's promise to pay the amount back to Fed.
Normal banks do option c. They manage loans and debts in a manner that increases the amount of property (value) in their direct control. Of course, when the value controlled by banking sector increases as they make profit, it means the value in control of other businesses and consumers is going to be reduced. Amount of money increasing without amount of value leads to inflation and isn't generally a good idea; So, a general growth of economy is required for the system to work. And that's the crux of the problem.
You see, my biggest bone to pick with capitalism is not really related to my personal preference to regulated capitalism with wide social services. It's more related on mathematics and physics.
Capitalism relies on perpetual growth. (Socialism can too, if it's done stupidly like in the case of communism in Soviet union. But I wouldn't even call that socialism, more like a twisted perversion of valid ideas...)
This is impossible. Earth has a finite volume of resources. Simple application of basic mathematics is enough to see that finite resources can't support growth infinitely.
At some point, the growth will end. Period. It can't go on any more, and at that point if the economy and society still relies on growth to function, it will collapse catastrophically. At that point, for any growth you would need to have equal decreases in the economy; currently a recession is bad for economy and depression is a disaster.
Sustainable developement will eventually require an economical status quo that does not rely on growth, because growing will eventually be impossible.
And just like the population growth, it would be far better to get the situation in control before external factors force their limits on us. In the case of population increase, if it's not controlled it will lead to untold suffering as the critical limit is exceeded and people start to simply die at the same rate they are born, which will of course stabilize the population but... I'm sure you can see why it would be preferable to limit the growth before that point. :nervous:
-
I don't use a credit card. And liberator, never do that again, its a pain in the ass to read through that.
I didn't say it was OK or that I liked it, I said it was legal. Not right, not ethical, but legal.
So make it ILLEGAL. That's what our legislative branch is for.
Hmm, 16 hour days, 10 hour conference calls, never seeing your wife and kids. Sounds like work to me.
If all CEO's really did that, and they were running successful companies that were making a profit, I wouldn't be complaining. The problem is, simply, that they don't. AIG being the prime example here. I mean, seriously, I gotta wonder what the guys over at Blizzard are making, but I don't really care how much those guys get paid, because they obviously deserve it. The oil executives? Not so much.
Would you work somewhere where the government comes in and says, "Oh you are a senior manager with 35 years experience, but we don't think you are important, so you are going to make less than the guy that comes and fixes your computer."
What the hell is it with people and taking everything I say to the utmost extremes? Of course that's not going to work, but you know, I'm pretty sure the guy who comes and fixes your computer doesn't earn, say, $600000 a year. That's what I'm proposing. $600000 instead of a couple million.
To be honest, it's not a depression yet.
Yes, it is. There are bread lines. There are homeless people. There are scandals. There are lots of things. This is a depression - not one that is as obvious as the earlier ones, thanks to a stronger economy and technology, but it is there none-the-less.
What I can say is that you are pissing on a wildfire if you think knocking a CEOs salary in half would solve the monetary problems of a company worth 30 billion dollars. I don't think you quite grasp the scale of the companies involved in this mess.
It wouldn't. However, that's not where the entire problem lies, either. Take that one drug company where the CEO's severance package was more then the total liquid assets of the company. What about things like that?
I'm certain something will come along one day that will be better.
We're TRYING to make capitalism work better. You seem determined to prevent that.
Profanity has it's place, just not in a well reasoned discussion.
Good for you :D
-
If all CEO's really did that, and they were running successful companies that were making a profit, I wouldn't be complaining. The problem is, simply, that they don't. AIG being the prime example here. I mean, seriously, I gotta wonder what the guys over at Blizzard are making, but I don't really care how much those guys get paid, because they obviously deserve it. The oil executives? Not so much.
Ok, now that one gave me a laugh. People making computer games can make all the money they want because they deserve it, but you don't care, but big business CEO's don't deserve it.
-
If all CEO's really did that, and they were running successful companies that were making a profit, I wouldn't be complaining. The problem is, simply, that they don't. AIG being the prime example here. I mean, seriously, I gotta wonder what the guys over at Blizzard are making, but I don't really care how much those guys get paid, because they obviously deserve it. The oil executives? Not so much.
Ok, now that one gave me a laugh. People making computer games can make all the money they want because they deserve it, but you don't care, but big business CEO's don't deserve it.
To be fair the oil companies are still doing fairly well, it's the financial institutions that are rotten.
-
Banks are a business, just like all the rest. And they do have a valuable role in the economy. Loans. Loans exist as a means of providing capital. Capital is used for funding things such as business expansions and home ownership. Take away banks, and who will give people loans? Banks don't take away wealth, they create it by expanding the amount of capital in the market. Stock is the same way. When a business sells stock, it uses those funds to expand and provide more jobs.
-
.
-
Insurance is voluntary. Universal health-care has no opt-out option. That's why I don't like it. Government tells me what to do since "its for my own good".
And as for the CIA, that is completely different. That is national defense, one of the legitimate functions of government. To get an idea of what I think the legitimate functions of a government are, I think that all a government is supposed to do is protect us from outside attack such as terrorists or foreign invasion, protect us from internal attack (this includes robberies, rapes, murders, etc., basically anything that violates my rights to life, liberty, and property and only acts that violate those rights, acts such as prostitution and drug use are not acts that violate those rights), and build infrastructure. Anything more an government is overstepping its bounds.
-
Anything more an government is overstepping its bounds.
Wow. That feels so totally alien to me that I don't even know what to say. :blah:
So I think I'll just agree to disagree.
-
If all CEO's really did that, and they were running successful companies that were making a profit, I wouldn't be complaining. The problem is, simply, that they don't. AIG being the prime example here. I mean, seriously, I gotta wonder what the guys over at Blizzard are making, but I don't really care how much those guys get paid, because they obviously deserve it. The oil executives? Not so much.
Ok, now that one gave me a laugh. People making computer games can make all the money they want because they deserve it, but you don't care, but big business CEO's don't deserve it.
Yes. Although I would revise that to "make large amounts of money" because if Blizzard execs were making as much as oil companies the situation would be somewhat different.
The simple reason is that the Oil executives had to go on trial to justify their $16 million paycheck and how they can possibly complain about prices when they continually break records for profit margins and have what can only be considered a goddamn monopoly on the oil industry. I used blizzard because it was 5 f*cking AM in the morning and it was the first thing that came to mind, for obvious reasons. Microsoft is interesting in that most of its department leaders were programmers at one point, thus justifying at least a part of the large paycheck they now receive. For that matter the point I'm trying to make is that I am willing to tolerate large paychecks if the CEOs aren't simply being paid millions of dollars for sitting around in meetings and telling people what to do without ever having done anything different. Yes, CEOs deserve a lot of money. JUST NOT THAT MUCH.
-
So make it ILLEGAL. That's what our legislative branch is for.
:mad:
Our legislative branch exists to make laws that protect the welfare of the people, pertaining to ONLY that which is in the constitution of these United States. It most certainly does NOT exist to make illegal anything that pertains to the economy. The legislative branch is specifically limited to what is enumerated in the constitution by the 10th Amendment.
Sorry about the rant, that issue is a button of mine.
Earth has a finite volume of resources.
But the value of the resources can and frequently does increase. Value can be construed as relative, and that value can increase, leading to a higher amount of wealth in the world.
There are homeless people. There are scandals. There are lots of things.
As there are when everything is completely fine, even booming.
Saying that increasing income taxes reduce the inventive to make money is like saying increasing food prices reduce hunger.
No, it's like saying that increasing food prices reduces the willingness to buy food because of the higher prices.
The oil executives? Not so much.
What's wrong with the oil guys? :confused:
Capitalism or not, I think the people's money will go to what they don't approve of.
Approving of it isn't the problem. The problem is that it goes to support people who haven't/won't really earn/deserve it.
*snip*
Anything more an government is overstepping its bounds
Sure thing, but have fun printing your own money, delivering your own mail, actually being safe, since the government can't raise taxes under your ideal world, suing someone for malpractic/negligence, or any one of a myriad of other things.
what can only be considered a goddamn monopoly on the oil industry.
Courtesy of Wikipedia: A monopoly occurs when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
Can you tell me which specific individual or enterprise controls the whole market? Hmmm, probably not, since there are at least a dozen: Chevron, Cheif Oil and Gas, ConocoPhillips, Crown Central Oil, Devon Energy, Koch, Kerr-McGee, Marathon, Sunoco, United Refining, Vaalco, XTO energy, etc.
Side note: Those are ALL in the U.S. only.
Microsoft is interesting in that most of its department leaders were programmers at one point, thus justifying at least a part of the large paycheck they now receive.
*facepalm* Hold on a sec. You are saying that gigantic salaries are immoral and should be illegal, but then spin around and say that "game progammers are okay." Reasoning? What makes them better?
I am willing to tolerate large paychecks if the CEOs aren't simply being paid millions of dollars for sitting around in meetings and telling people what to do without ever having done anything different.
My, so many things that can be made to fit under a phrase so small. Such as: ordering supplies (neccessarily from different suppliers, especially if company produces something ) approving raises, appointing executives/higher ups, okaying expenses, determining expansions, all the s*** that entails with that, and a myriad of other things.
Okay, you need to stop posting on this thread now. You clearly do not know anything about the areasubject and can't be bothered to look things up.
-
The government's powers and prerogatives are clearly laid out in the Constitution. There are several people in this thread that are all but suggesting that said document be tossed out in favor of a mob rule by polling and who the mob happens to be angry at at that particular moment.
That's called anarchy, by the way, the complete lack of any civilized order in a society.
You don't wanna live in a world like that. You wanna see a world like that? South Central LA in the days following Rodney King. You throw out the Constitution, it'll be like that every day. Everywhere. At least until the jackboots show up and it's Nazi Germany all over again people who speak against the government disappearing in the night, secret police, concentration camps and all that.
Then again, some might welcome a world run by people who have forgotten that humanity is as much a part of the ecology of Earth as a lion or a gazelle.
-
And Liberator Godwin's himself thus losing the argument.
And no, having a government without a constitution != Nazi Germany. The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.
-
People talk about the Constitution like it was handed down from on high by god himself and can do no wrong.
-
The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.
The UK is still ostensibly a monarchy too, except true political power is installed in the PM and the Houses. The Queen and the rest of the royal family are figureheads. Beloved, generally honorable and respected, but figureheads nonetheless.
The USA is a Constitutional Representative Republic. Unfortunately unique in this world. Our founding documents enumerate the express powers of our government and it's branches. Any power not expressly present in those documents remains endowed with the States and they're citizens. These days, just the citizens. Put simply, the constitution exists to limit the power of goverment and protect the God given rights that are present in all people at birth. A government cannot grant or take away any rights that her citizens do not voluntarily give up.
And no, having a government without a constitution != Nazi Germany.
Not by itself no, but a few weeks of chaos, and you'd be surprised what people would agree with. Hitler didn't grab control over night, he massaged it over the course of a decade.
People talk about the Constitution like it was handed down from on high by god himself and can do no wrong.
No, but I believe it was divinely inspired. Seriously people read the thing. Sad to say I haven't read the whole thing recently myself. Anything from outside the original document and the amendments is supposed to be out of bounds and handled by the states on an individual basis
-
The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.
The UK is still ostensibly a monarchy too, except true political power is installed in the PM and the Houses. The Queen and the rest of the royal family are figureheads. Beloved, generally honorable and respected, but figureheads nonetheless.
The USA is a Constitutional Representative Republic. Unfortunately unique in this world. Our founding documents enumerate the express powers of our government and it's branches. Any power not expressly present in those documents remains endowed with the States and they're citizens. These days, just the citizens. Put simply, the constitution exists to limit the power of goverment and protect the God given rights that are present in all people at birth. A government cannot grant or take away any rights that her citizens do not voluntarily give up.
So by your logic we can kick out the constitution and make someone monarch and America would work too.
I vote for David Hasselhoff. :p
-
No, but I believe it was divinely inspired. Seriously people read the thing. Sad to say I haven't read the whole thing recently myself. Anything from outside the original document and the amendments is supposed to be out of bounds and handled by the states on an individual basis
I've absolutely read the entire thing.
And divinely inspired reminds me of when someone says a movie was "inspired by true events" which means it is absolutely false.
-
And no, having a government without a constitution != Nazi Germany. The UK gets by just fine without one thank you so very much.
UK though does have Magna Carta instead, which is the "mother" of all constitutions worldwide.
-
Virtually everything in he Magna Carta has been repealed by later laws. Habeas corpus is about the only one that hasn't.
And that's really my point. Magna Carta isn't an unchangeable document. If parts of it no longer are valid then it can simply be changed.
-
Businesses exist to make a profit.
For they're CEOs, Owners, Partners, ect. Take a course is General Business and you'll understand. :sigh:
Shockingly enough, people don't really enjoy watching CEOs and owners walk away with all the money while the economy tanks.
"I'm only in it to make money, screw you" isn't really helping win hearts and minds of the people who get to decide the rules in times like this.
Then maybe the American people should be more pissed off at (as Babylon 5's Londo Mollari so eloquently put it) that "convention of genetic defectives" called Congress for having even allowed language into the AIG bailout to allow for the CEOs to have been paid the bonuses. True capitalism would've allowed AIG to fail and allow other entities to fill the void.
On some level I don't fault the CEOs entirely, since that is simply the nature of that particular animal. The failure in this respect is in our elected officials who are more incompetent in doing their duty (like reading the f***ing bills that they pass) than the CEOs at running their businesses.
IF people really want to impose "Robin Hood" economics by stealing from the rich, then let's start with the federal government because if we remember the story, the government are the rich, and vice versa when considering influences each has on the other.
-
Then maybe the American people should be more pissed off at (as Babylon 5's Londo Mollari so eloquently put it) that "convention of genetic defectives" called Congress for having even allowed language into the AIG bailout to allow for the CEOs to have been paid the bonuses. True capitalism would've allowed AIG to fail and allow other entities to fill the void.
Does this positively affect regular citizens while they wait to see if things turn out ok? How many years does a market correction take and what do you offer the people who have to sit and watch and hope their livelihoods don't go up in smoke in the meantime?
On some level I don't fault the CEOs entirely, since that is simply the nature of that particular animal. The failure in this respect is in our elected officials who are more incompetent in doing their duty (like reading the f***ing bills that they pass) than the CEOs at running their businesses.
Except this wasn't a case of CEOs simply "running a business".
If you can't see how their actions resonate through the very country itself then there is no use continuing the talk.
IF people really want to impose "Robin Hood" economics by stealing from the rich, then let's start with the federal government because if we remember the story, the government are the rich, and vice versa when considering influences each has on the other.
Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.
-
Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.
There's nothing quasi-legal about it. It is entirely legal. If the government didn't want bonuses/severance packages, then they damn well should have specified. They didn't. Boo hoo.
Does this positively affect regular citizens while they wait to see if things turn out ok?
And this is so much better, we get to wait 20 years for the problem to fix itself instead of two. Honestly, how much f*cking worse could it get if we just let the dead things go?
Lemme put it this way: Do you keep the rotting corpse of your pet fish around, just because the kids would be sad and mopey if they didn't have a fish?
Not a perfect analogy, by a long shot, but it's all I have right now.
EDIT: fixed the wording a little.
-
True capitalism would've allowed AIG to fail and allow other entities to fill the void.
And as said before there's no true capitalism, never were and never will be. The same for socialism, communism etc.
Here is a stupid conspiracy theory which has nothing to do whith justice, ethics and political systems:
1.For the last 15 years, China collects enormous amounts of US government bonds (i hope the term is right).
2.For the last 15 years, US and EU major banks allow absurdly surplus values to be created in many fields of economy and especially in real estate within US.
3.Reccurrent warnings about the phenomenon are being ignored by people who are supposed to know basic economics for the last 10 years (the danger of creating such kind of surplus values is a basic economics knowledge after the '29 market collapse).
4.The crisis begins, having as a corner stone guess what. Greenspan admits ‘mistake’ that helped crisis :lol:
(So far, no conspiracy theory, just facts)
5. US prints dollars to overcome the crisis. Those dollars are diverted mostly to the banks. The absolute value of each dolar falls and so does the debt of US to China.
End off story, start flaming.
Karajorma i have a question (just hopping that you can save me from the research): The majority of changes in reference with Magna Carta took place before or after the palace stoped being a political power in UK?
-
Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.
There's nothing quasi-legal about it. It is entirely legal. If the government didn't want bonuses/severance packages, then they damn well should have specified. They didn't. Boo hoo.
I sort of meant the process that caused the companies to go down the crapper and force them to take federal funds. Remember that part?
And this is so much better, we get to wait 20 years for the problem to fix itself instead of two. Honestly, how much f*cking worse could it get if we just let the dead things go?
You mean besides the jobs lost, money lost, credit lost, the economy grinding to a halt while financial institutions work on ways to keep running? Not that bad at all. Rainbows and sunshine.
Lemme put it this way: Do you keep the rotting corpse of your pet fish around, just because the kids would be sad and mopey if they didn't have a fish?
Not a perfect analogy, by a long shot, but it's all I have right now.
EDIT: fixed the wording a little.
If those corpses are main parts of the economy and can't just be replaced effortlessly? Until they can be replaced effortlessly.
-
The main part of the economy is Small Business. The guy that owns one or two shops.
This car thing is just to pay back UAW for it's years of mindless support.
-
Didn't car workers take big pay cuts before on the promise they could get health care later?
To me that sounds like a big business boo boo.
-
No, but I believe it was divinely inspired. Seriously people read the thing. Sad to say I haven't read the whole thing recently myself. Anything from outside the original document and the amendments is supposed to be out of bounds and handled by the states on an individual basis
If it was "divinely inspired" it would be unchangable, which is false. Like the Magna Carta it can be changed.
This really reminds me of the absurd "the US was founded on christian values" crap.
-
It was founded on Judeo-Christian values, Western Civilization largely is, whether you want to recognize it or not. This is opposed to be founded with Islamic or Wiccan or whatever the hell else you might choose to use.
The founding fathers were not atheists or humanists. They went to church and prayed regularly. Our founding documents invoke God in several places. To say that they would try to found a country without consulting the Almightly is mildly fallacious and slightly absurd.
So you can take that little, weak attempt to rewrite history and shove up your afterburner.
-
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/tarkin.jpg)
-
It was founded on Judeo-Christian values,
Freedom of religion, speech, and justice for all are not christian values at all, those were ancient Athenian values. If you want to see a country that actually was founded on Christian values, check out France under the bourbon monarchy.
Our founding documents invoke God in several places.
Like where? I don't recall God being invoked anywhere in the constitution.
-
Let's look at some quotes from our founding fathers:
Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak mines are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion
-George Washington
The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust
-Thomas Jefferson
Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man
-Thomas Jefferson
During fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolences in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution
-James Madison
Lighthouses are more useful than churches
-Benjamin Franklin
This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it
-John Adams
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how it has happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed
-John Adams
In case you forgot Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were the first three presidents and helped write the constitution, along with franklin.
-
Kosh, the Hell is with the spaces? :ick:
----------
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/tarkin.jpg)
I thought that Tarkin was a Grand Moff....
--------
Like where? I don't recall God being invoked anywhere in the constitution.
The Declaration of Independence.
-
The Declaration of Independence.
Which is not the constitution, and was written 12 years before the constitution.
Even so, under what context was it written in? Care to provide a quote?
-
I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. They are very enlightening to understand the minds of the Founders. I bought my dad the unabridged collection, it's a book about 1200 pages long.
-
I'll take this one step farther. If the founding fathers were "deeply religious" then why did Jefferson re-write (http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/dp/0807077143) the bible to remove miracles and claims of divinity?
I suggest you read the Federalist Papers. They are very enlightening to understand the minds of the Founders. I bought my dad the unabridged collection, it's a book about 1200 pages long.
So instead of providing evidence you tell me to read a book that would require months to finish?
EDIT 2:
Let's look at a quote from one of the writers of the Federalist papers, James Madison:
We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion, or the duty we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right.
Now, Christianity has a long history of being hugely intolerant towards anyone who didn't agree with it, or even its interpretation of the bible to the point of slaughtering people. So to say that anyone can believe anything they want really was very un-christian like.
-
Yes, because you will need months of proof before you change your mind, which is good and bad.
http://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/1596052473/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239682083&sr=1-2
Is nice and cheap too. It'll help you understand where your country came from and what it's based on.
-
Yes, because you will need months of proof before you change your mind, which is good and bad.
http://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/1596052473/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239682083&sr=1-2
Is nice and cheap too. It'll help you understand where your country came from and what it's based on.
I've read them and I still think you're wrong.
-
Yes, because you will need months of proof before you change your mind, which is good and bad.
http://www.amazon.com/Federalist-Papers-Alexander-Hamilton/dp/1596052473/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239682083&sr=1-2
Is nice and cheap too. It'll help you understand where your country came from and what it's based on.
I've read them and I still think you're wrong.
Well Lib, what do you say about that?
-
Kosh has provided quotes and the best response is "Go read 1200 pages and come back to me when you find my point"
Somehow I don't think that's gonna fly.
-
What would you like me to say? That he's a moron or an idiot who can't read 3 sentences without getting a headache?
You don't want to have your mind changed about this, because if it did, it might mean you have to change it about other less comfortable things. That's all, you've built your life around the concept that there is nothing higher than yourself, without leaving even the possibility otherwise. That's incredibly small and I'm sorry you don't have that in your life. Regardless, nothing has been accomplished in this thread either way.
Kinda sad really. Buncha 20 somethings think they know how the world works. Just give it sometime, the Real World will come bite you on the ass and you might just see I was a little more correct than you thought I was.
-
Apparently this is how Lib gets when he gets owned.
A lot of the Founding Fathers were actually Deists, who aren't really Christians -- rather scientific about their religion, really.
It appears the Founding Fathers were even less big on Christianity than I thought. Interesting.
-
Apparently this is how Lib gets when he gets owned.
Not really, just tired of arguing with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. BTW, it was never a competition, so how would I get "owned" exactly?
-
Well, you want everybody to read the Federalist Papers, written about
50% 30% by one James Madison. Who apparently said...
During fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolences in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution
Very Deist.
Hamilton, on the other hand, was very pro-Christianity: I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.
So you've already got your religious diversity right there.
-
Not denying anything he said. But those are failings of man, not God.
-
That I leave to the philosophers. But keep your faith to yourself; it is, after all, a personal matter. Leave it out of the government and the lives of others. Heaven will be your reward, after all.
And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]
GOOGLE-FU
-
Whatever I'm done arguing.
The goal was to separate the Government from religion so that people would not have to worry about someone telling them how, who or what to worship.
-
Yeeeep. That was the goal.
-
Wait, then what are we arguing about?
-
Liberator claimed that America was founded on Christian values. As Kosh proved that many of the founding fathers were Deists that seems like nonsense. Liberator claimed that reading Federalist Papers would prove him right and refused to provide any specific quote or explanation of how. Blue Lion said that he has read them and that they don't prove Liberator right. Liberator continued to fail to provide any proof of how the Federalist Papers prove he's right which probably means that they don't (or that he doesn't remember them very well and is bluffing).
That's my Tuesday morning before caffeine summary of the thread. :D
Karajorma i have a question (just hopping that you can save me from the research): The majority of changes in reference with Magna Carta took place before or after the palace stoped being a political power in UK?
Wikipedia has a nice table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta#Rights_still_in_force_today) of when each clause was repealed. It did hold for much of Britain's history admittedly.
-
Reading the Federalist Papers looking for simple pithy quotes is almost pointless. It is a massive piece of works designed to garner support during the ratification. The idea that these papers somehow say "we should have the Constitution because that's what God wants" is disingenuous. The debate was Federalist/Anti Federalist. Religion would have almost no bearing on the issue.
-
The goal was to separate the Government from religion so that people would not have to worry about someone telling them how, who or what to worship.
Which doesn't sound like it was being founded as any sort of christian nation.
Liberator claimed that America was founded on Christian values. As Kosh proved that many of the founding fathers were Deists that seems like nonsense. Liberator claimed that reading Federalist Papers would prove him right and refused to provide any specific quote or explanation of how. Blue Lion said that he has read them and that they don't prove Liberator right. Liberator continued to fail to provide any proof of how the Federalist Papers prove he's right which probably means that they don't (or that he doesn't remember them very well and is bluffing).
That's my Tuesday morning before caffeine summary of the thread. Big grin
I've got a shorter one:
(http://www.vidarholen.net/contents/links/purepwnage.jpg)
-
I'm done arguing politics/soical issues with you guys. You are all so much smarter than me that you make me look like an ant contemplating string theory.
I'm sorry to have wasted your time all these years.
-
An argument isn't just contradiction. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm)
It is true that the US constitution relies heavily on values and moral principles that we like to bunch together as values of "western civilization", which mainly include a lot of freedoms and define crimes as something that limits other people's freedoms or causes damage to others.
However, these are not just christian values, they are common sense.
True, the values and ethics of western civilization have been influenced by Christianity, but calling the values of Western civilization "christian" values is a gross oversimplification no matter what values US constitution was based on.
If I understood your claim correctly, Liberator, you were saying that US constitution is based on western civilization values (being part of the western world), which are christian values, so therefore US constitution is based on christian values.
By same logic you could say that Hitler's Third Reich was based on christian values, because it was part of western world and western world's values are permeated by christian values...
For obvious reasons, no one with any common sense is going to actually try to use that argument and expect to be taken seriously (although I'm certain it has been used by those without common sense...). However, structurally it is the same as your claim. Assuming I interpreted your claim correctly.
Even less compelling claim is to say that the US constitution was divinely inspired. An argument like that is inherently impossible to falsify and therefore I could make the same claim about this message - and if I were a deist, it would actually be a valid statement by definition... also known as tautology, and meaningless considering that everything would be part of the divine nature, whether it has a consciousness of it's own or not. But no more of that...
-
Wikipedia has a nice table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta#Rights_still_in_force_today) of when each clause was repealed. It did hold for much of Britain's history admittedly.
Thank you very much :)
-
I'm done arguing politics/soical issues with you guys. You are all so much smarter than me that you make me look like an ant contemplating string theory.
I'm sorry to have wasted your time all these years.
It's unfortunate that you choose to base your views on ignorance, but that's your choice.
-
Well, let's at least be kind -- the man actually conceded an argument, which is more mature and intelligent than many people on HLP can manage.
I respect that.
-
Does this positively affect regular citizens while they wait to see if things turn out ok? How many years does a market correction take and what do you offer the people who have to sit and watch and hope their livelihoods don't go up in smoke in the meantime?
Depends, the Recession of 1921-23 took about a year to resolve and the government didn't intervene all that much.
Why is it when CEOs get rich by quasi legal or ethical means it's all a part of capitalism, but if the people do it, it's theft.
The Federal Government does not equal the people. The federal government allowed for the bonuses to be paid by including language in the bailout bill. The "people" got screwed by their public servants who are to serve in the public interest.
Getting angry at the CEOs for being greedy is like expecting wolves not attack a flock of sheep. It is simply the nature of the animal. Now understand, that this isn't some moral justification bull****. Knowing that some CEOS will inevitably take the path of the "bad guy", government comes in as the "good guy" and says it will "right the wrongs of the evildoers".
However, it turns out the "good guy" isn't as good as it claims it is, allows for the "bad guy" to do more things that pisses off the people, then claims it didn't know anything, then retracts and says it did. Either the "good guy" is just another "bad guy" with a false moniker and is outright lying to the public, or is grossly incompetent and easily manipulated by the "bad guy". Either way, the people are getting screwed. So, what's worse, the bad guy we all know about, or the "bad guy" pretending to be our "good guy"?
Despite what most politicians claim, their subservience lies with those who fund their election campaigns, party lines be damned.
-
Sir Doctor sir said:
This is impossible. Earth has a finite volume of resources. Simple application of basic mathematics is enough to see that finite resources can't support growth infinitely.
I think you have missed the conservation laws in that train of thought. Also, same resources can be utilized in a different way to provide more growth.
Oh, I think they are now negotiating about exporting Finnish bank system model to Central Europe. Let's see how far that goes. The downturn here in the 1990s was basically what happened now in US.
One comment for US readers also: the rationale behind bailing out the dwindling companies is simply national security as far as I have understood it. Nobody seems to be willing to take the risk of letting a big company crash, as this could result in banking system losing all credibility, a nightmare scenario that everybody wants to avoid. The repercussions are unknown, China having the wildcard here.
The follow-up question (actually this is rhetorical) would then be how come that the companies have became so big that they can actually force capitalistic country to pay for their failures without being nationalized? I thought getting this kind of market share should be impossible in a capitalistic system, as there should always be competition! And not nationalizing the company seems even more weird, surely capitalist would like to have some return for his money?
Bottom line is that both systems are fundamentally flawed for the same reason: not taking into account the human behavior and assuming that the law will be uphold with utmost integrity.
What it comes to taxes, I gladly pay my share for education, welfare and healthcare, as these are stabilising agents in the society. My only requirement for each of these institutes is that they really function. And they seem to be functioning, there is basically no gun crime around here, nor do I see homeless people around. Healthcare we can discuss, but that's another topic and internal business of Finland - though I have heard similar comments from elsewhere in Europe also.
Why is the progressive tax system is seen in a such bad light? Yeah, you could say it punishes the most innovative people, but then again the system seen in US seems to punish those who don't earn much money to me. Unfortunately, these people are just as required in the society as those innovative guys (actually even more, without them there is no basic functionality in the society); they make all the things actually happen.
The funny thing is that I have gone through the same discussion elsewhere in the internet back in 1998 I think...
Mika
-
Liberator claimed that America was founded on Christian values.
It very much was. It was not, however, founded as a Christian state. Several of said values are found in various laws and regulations of the then fledgling country. For example, making illegal murder, stealing, and perjury (the 5th, 7th, and 8th commandments, respectively).
On a side-note (not sure about on-topicness at this point): Separation of Church and State was enacted to keep the church from taxing people, since I'm fairly sure that taxes can only be levied by congress (not any business or individual).
On-Topic again!
Why is the progressive tax system is seen in a such bad light?
Because at times like the height of the Vietnam war the top tax bracket was paying 90% taxes. Flat taxes encourage more spending at nearly all levels affected. Personally, I would support a 15% flat tax. Think of how much more money would be pumped into the economy by people from most if not all 'levels' of income.
-
Oh boy, this whole deal about America being a Christian nation really gets me going, so first thing I'm going to do is go through the religions of some of the Founding Fathers.
These are the signers of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Abraham Baldwin - Congregationalist / Episcopalian
Richard Bassett - Methodist
Gunning Bedford, Jr. - Christian Freemason / Presbyterian
John Blair - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
William Blount - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
David Brearly - Episcopalian / Christian Freemason
Jacob Broom - Lutheran / Old Swedes Church
Pierce Butler - Episcopalian
Daniel Carroll - Catholic
George Clymer - Quaker / Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
John Dickinson - Quaker / Episcopalian
William Few - Methodist
Thomas Fitzsimons - Roman Catholic
Benjamin Franklin - Presbyterian / Christian Deist (*NOTE)
Nicholas Gilman - Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham - Congregationalist
Alexander Hamilton - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
Jared Ingersoll - Presbyterian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer - Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
Rufus King - Episcopalian / Congregationalist
John Langdon - Congregationalist
William Livingston - Presbyterian
James Madison - Episcopal
James McHenry - Presbyterian
Thomas Mifflin - Lutheran
Gouverneur Morris - Episcopalian / Non-Denominational Christian (*NOTE)
Robert Morris - Episcopalian
William Paterson - Presbyterian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney - Episcopalian / Non-Denominational Christian (*NOTE)
Charles Pinkney - Episcopalian
George Read - Episcopalian
John Rutledge - Episcopalian
Roger Sherman - Congregationalist
Richard Dobbs Spaight - Episcopalian
George Washington - Church of England / Episcopalian
Hugh Williamson - Presbyterian
James Wilson - Presbyterian / Episcopalian
Even if one includes non-signers, you're still getting Christianity as the dominant religion.
Okay, I have (*NOTES) on some of these because wikipedia is either vague or just doesn't outright mention what denomination a person is, so I just put Non-denominational Christian (though more accurately, Protestant as they were certainly not Roman Catholic).
Franklin is a little bit of an enigma in that he seems to have gone from a more orthodox Christianity to Deism, to his own personal belief which seemed more of a liberal Christianity rather than any specific sect.
It should also be noted that Deism in the 18th century was an offshoot of Christianity that while questioning the more superstitious and mythological aspects, held to a Christian morality.
Thomas Jefferson I would argue is a Christian Deist or Unitarian (which is still rooted in Christianity), John Adams a Unitarian, Thomas Paine, probably closer to the modern definition of Deist (though he fiercely detested many Christian doctrines).
In terms of America being founded a Christian nation? Well, it depends on how you define your country. If you define America solely by its government and not its dominant culture or religion, than yeah, I suppose you could argue that it wasn't a Christian nation.
However, when you take a look at the populace being something like 90% Protestant and the general sense of ethics and culture of the people, it's very hard to say that the country wasn't Christian in its character. We had chaplains, swearing on the Bible, references to the 10 Commandments, school prayer, etc.
Furthermore, the root cause of the Pilgrims having left England was so they could practice a more biblical form of Christianity without fear of being persecuted, (which has a lot to do with the influencing the inclusion for freedom of religion in the first amendment, as well as historical significance for Americans in general).
-
For example, making illegal murder, stealing, and perjury (the 5th, 7th, and 8th commandments, respectively)
And yet those can be found in non-christian countries too. That is simply called "common sense". Plus perjury is not completely the 8th commandment since it only applies to very specific circumstances.
Even so, many of the freedoms we have are most definately not christian.
On a side-note (not sure about on-topicness at this point): Separation of Church and State was enacted to keep the church from taxing people, since I'm fairly sure that taxes can only be levied by congress (not any business or individual).
I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.
-
I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.
Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them. Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes Are the majority of Christians like those few? not really no
-
Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them. Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes Are the majority of Christians like those few? not really no
An institution can be rotten, even when the vast, vast majority of its membership is not.
-
I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.
Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them. Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes Are the majority of Christians like those few? not really no
Same could be said of most groups....
But he didn't talk about his own opinions there. He discussed historical fact.
-
I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.
Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them. Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes Are the majority of Christians like those few? not really no
its called the roman catholic church of the middle ages
-
Depends, the Recession of 1921-23 took about a year to resolve and the government didn't intervene all that much.
So a recession now, in a global economy and with our current state of power, should take how long? Longer or shorter? At what cost to the people or government?
The Federal Government does not equal the people.
I voted for quite a few federal offices. Explain how it does not equal me.
The federal government allowed for the bonuses to be paid by including language in the bailout bill. The "people" got screwed by their public servants who are to serve in the public interest.
And if I read the arguments correctly, some are arguing the federal government shouldn't even have looked into it at all.
Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?
Getting angry at the CEOs for being greedy is like expecting wolves not attack a flock of sheep. It is simply the nature of the animal. Now understand, that this isn't some moral justification bull****. Knowing that some CEOS will inevitably take the path of the "bad guy", government comes in as the "good guy" and says it will "right the wrongs of the evildoers".
Yea, but you don't let the wolf eat the sheep "cause that's what they do". You try to stop them. That's a poor analogy.
However, it turns out the "good guy" isn't as good as it claims it is, allows for the "bad guy" to do more things that pisses off the people, then claims it didn't know anything, then retracts and says it did. Either the "good guy" is just another "bad guy" with a false moniker and is outright lying to the public, or is grossly incompetent and easily manipulated by the "bad guy". Either way, the people are getting screwed. So, what's worse, the bad guy we all know about, or the "bad guy" pretending to be our "good guy"?
By that horrible logic, it doesn't matter, since they're both bad guys. But in another way, I wouldn't trust a CEO or business exec with my freedom or liberty because I know he is concerned with neither. He wants what is in my wallet, period.
-
Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?
That's the point: A capitalistic system is not suppose to do anything. Unless that it's declared that it's not working anymore. There's no way for something good to come out of Hypocrisy. (I mean good for the people, not for the "wolves").
-
Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?
That's the point: A capitalistic system is not suppose to do anything. Unless that it's declared that it's not working anymore. There's no way for something good to come out of Hypocrisy. (I mean good for the people, not for the "wolves").
Except we aren't a pure capitalistic system. No one is.
-
its called the roman catholic church of the middle ages
Which was over 500 years ago. At what point do the sins of the father stop being the sins of the son exactly?
-
its called the roman catholic church of the middle ages
Which was over 500 years ago. At what point do the sins of the father stop being the sins of the son exactly?
You were talking about the founding fathers and their reasons for framing the separation of church and state. Strangely enough that is also based on things that happened hundreds of years ago.
Do you really need to keep being reminded what you are arguing about?
-
Seperation of Church and State...ha...like that ever happens. :doubt:
-
Kosh, you have been around some really rotten Christians if you have that view if them. Were/are they're not nice people that were Christians? yes Are the majority of Christians like those few? not really no
Not all but quite a few that I've met in my life have put pressure on me to join. I got crap for being an atheist for most of my life, and continually harrassed into joining them, which I always refused. I've heard many stories from other atheists in America who had exactly the same experiences. Christianity is inherently imperialistic, and actually was used as justification for European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries.
You were talking about the founding fathers and their reasons for framing the separation of church and state. Strangely enough that is also based on things that happened hundreds of years ago.
And at that time it was still happening in Europe, especially in France. One of the goals of the French Revolution was to overthrow the oppressive religious caste.
-
Except we aren't a pure capitalistic system. No one is.
But i would like to know what exactly are we.
For the last years we were something like globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap. Mainly "Sosialist's" were those who brought this situation on Europe and on US were the democrats. And the consevatives took advandage of it and pushed it to the limits.
What i see happening now is the extention of this failure whith the use of public money (regardless the US debt to Cnina :lol:)
And as a response, Americans start to feel that socialism could be a better system (which socialism by the way?) and Europeans do the same, turning to the "left" parties, the very same who created this mess in the first place.
So what are we? (Yes, i know, we are idiots and speak for yourself peterv)
-
The United States is a bloated mega-corporation, obviously.
-
The credit crunch is caused by overvaluing of stock, and doeing all sorts of decisions for short-term profits because then the shareholders will give you gigantic bonusses.
If this is indeed caused by socialism, then why are all the socialist 'left' parties opposed to these massive bonuses (long before the credit crunch)?
Seperation of Church and State...ha...like that ever happens. :doubt:
Oh, it did. Just not in the USA.
-
The system is broken because humans are broken.
-
I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.
Oppressive and imperialistic nature of Christianity? Okay, I hear this quite a bunch from atheists, and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems. Islam can be oppressive and imperialistic (The Ottoman Turks, anyone?), The pagan Roman Empire can be oppressive (slaughtering Christians and Jews for refusal to burn incense to Caesar), Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).
This is a flaw of human nature.
I think it's erroneous to claim that the Founding Fathers mistrusted Christianity's general influence considering many of them had studied to be clergy of their respected churches while others had participated in Christian freemasonry. I think that this needs to be clarified that some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were critical of the religious establishments run by the clergy (such as the more mythological elements) as opposed to the beliefs and values espoused by Christianity.
I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for. If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are. I fully support people converting over to Christianity, but only if it is an honest conversion (knowing what they are getting into, what the beliefs are and why) and not simply "going with the flow" because it's the trendy thing to do (though that's a poor reason to do anything).
-
Seperation of Church and State...ha...like that ever happens. :doubt:
Well considering we still haven't set up a national church that everyone has to attend as well as the freedom to practice whatever religion we want, yeah, I'm pretty sure we don't have to fear returning to the bull**** the Pilgrims had to face under the Church of England.
-
I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.
Oppressive and imperialistic nature of Christianity? Okay, I hear this quite a bunch from atheists, and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems. Islam can be oppressive and imperialistic (The Ottoman Turks, anyone?), The pagan Roman Empire can be oppressive (slaughtering Christians and Jews for refusal to burn incense to Caesar), Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).
Those don't sound like much better reasons to trust any religion or ideology, Christianity included.
This is a flaw of human nature.
Yep.
I think it's erroneous to claim that the Founding Fathers mistrusted Christianity's general influence considering many of them had studied to be clergy of their respected churches while others had participated in Christian freemasonry. I think that this needs to be clarified that some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were critical of the religious establishments run by the clergy (such as the more mythological elements) as opposed to the beliefs and values espoused by Christianity.
I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for. If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are. I fully support people converting over to Christianity, but only if it is an honest conversion (knowing what they are getting into, what the beliefs are and why) and not simply "going with the flow" because it's the trendy thing to do (though that's a poor reason to do anything).
Please restrain from personal attacks, my friend. For all you know he's had excellent experiences with Christians and simply doesn't agree with the ideology. Atheism is not some kind of larval stage of spiritual development.
-
The credit crunch is caused by overvaluing of stock, and doeing all sorts of decisions for short-term profits because then the shareholders will give you gigantic bonusses.
If this is indeed caused by socialism, then why are all the socialist 'left' parties opposed to these massive bonuses (long before the credit crunch)?
Massive bonuses are only the top of the iceberg and the credit crunch is only the end phase of the "mistake" Alan greenspan admited : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1
This thing started in early 90's, not now. (Perhaps even earlier, i'll have to do some research on this).
-
But i would like to know what exactly are we.
A combination of socialism and capitalism... like practically everyone. Everyone looks for that mix between socialism and capitalism. The more time you spend thinking about how capitalist we are, the more time you miss fixing big issues.
For the last years we were something like globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap. Mainly "Sosialist's" were those who brought this situation on Europe and on US were the democrats. And the consevatives took advandage of it and pushed it to the limits.
I don't get what you're saying here. Free market was taken to "limits" by conservatives because of what Democrats did? When did Democrats do anything? They haven't controlled anything in any serious capacity since 1994.
Do you even understand what the current problems are?
What i see happening now is the extention of this failure whith the use of public money (regardless the US debt to Cnina :lol:)
If public money fails, how did the New Deal work? Public money has worked as a spending system in this country for over 200 years. The current problems we have now is NOT due to the most recent stimulus package, no matter how much "grassroots" tea party guys (teabaggers?) pound on about it.
And as a response, Americans start to feel that socialism could be a better system (which socialism by the way?) and Europeans do the same, turning to the "left" parties, the very same who created this mess in the first place.
So what are we? (Yes, i know, we are idiots and speak for yourself peterv)
We're what we've been forever, a Constitutional Democracy that has a capitalist system with socialist aspects. That people are throwing fits over government spending and socialism lead me to believe 1 of 2 things.
1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.
2. They're mad at Obama and Democrats and really have nothing to latch onto to be mad about.
Now that I think about it, maybe it's both.
-
The credit crunch is caused by overvaluing of stock, and doeing all sorts of decisions for short-term profits because then the shareholders will give you gigantic bonusses.
If this is indeed caused by socialism, then why are all the socialist 'left' parties opposed to these massive bonuses (long before the credit crunch)?
Massive bonuses are only the top of the iceberg and the credit crunch is only the end phase of the "mistake" Alan greenspan admited : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1
This thing started in early 90's, not now. (Perhaps even earlier, i'll have to do some research on this).
Actually it's kind of a do-over of the "savings and loans" problems that flared up oh so long ago. To pass the buck farther back is just cheesy.
-
1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.
Actually, the outrage is from both sides. Dems and Republicans are pissed that the government is putting the nation so far into debt that they're grandkids will still be paying for it. Contrary to what you seem to think, most people don't like being told that they have to give money to people who won't work it themselves.
2. They're mad at Obama and Democrats and really have nothing to latch onto to be mad about.
I'm not mad at Obamarama, he's what he is. I am pissed that he's lying about it and can't come off the teleprompter or he'll get himself and his political supporters(not the rank and file but The Usual Suspects) into so much hot water, they'll get boiled.
-
So a recession now, in a global economy and with our current state of power, should take how long? Longer or shorter? At what cost to the people or government?
At a guess, I'd say longer considering we no longer are the big exporters that we were then, nor the manufacturing powerhouse, but I could be wrong.
I do know that the Congressional Budget Office claimed that the Trillion dollar "stimulus" package will Triple our debt in 10 years and that the private sector will shrink considerably. It's already been stated that our grandchildren will be mired in debt and paybacks to China for the money we borrowed, so that's approx. 60+ years. assuming that each generation comes about every 30 years (I'm taking into account that if born this year, our children will have children in 30 years, and when their children are in the workplace, 60 years will have passed from this year).
I voted for quite a few federal offices. Explain how it does not equal me.
Voting does not mean the government equals you, as you, do not make up the whole of the people. If the government really equaled the people, then I think you need to ask yourself why today, on tax day, we have over 2000 national tea parties going with pissed off Americans protesting the very actions of the federal government bailouts and tax and spend.
And if I read the arguments correctly, some are arguing the federal government shouldn't even have looked into it at all.
Which is the correct path here, to do something about it, or not?
I think that investigations into the financial industry should be sanctioned independently and guilty parties found doing something illegal to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Normally, I'd actually have the government do this, BUT considering the lack of stewardship of Fannie and Freddie by such renowned boobs like Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd, I'd prefer to NOT have them part of the investigation.
I would NOT bail out failing companies. If you wish to reap the rewards of a capitalist system, you must also consider the possibility of failure. It IS a risk-based system.
I may even consider other measures if appropriate and applicable to solving the problem pendent on further research, but that, is currently the conclusion I have arrived at.
Getting angry at the CEOs for being greedy is like expecting wolves not attack a flock of sheep. It is simply the nature of the animal. Now understand, that this isn't some moral justification bull****. Knowing that some CEOS will inevitably take the path of the "bad guy", government comes in as the "good guy" and says it will "right the wrongs of the evildoers".
Yea, but you don't let the wolf eat the sheep "cause that's what they do". You try to stop them. That's a poor analogy.
I think you misinterpreted this analogy as I was comparing the natures of government and the CEOs. What you're supposed to get from this is that Government (or more accurately, the politicians running the government) basically claim to be helping you, while doing the opposite and rewarding bad behavior (due to political contributions, no doubt). In other words, you seem to be pissed off only at the CEOs and dismissive of those in government who allowed for this fiasco to happen, which suggests to me, a double standard due to an ideological belief that government can do no wrong (which of course if hogwash, because government is run by man who is a corruptible creature and thus prone to imperfection). Now, if I am wrong about my analysis of your perceived anger limited only to one party and not the other, please say so and I'll retract that statement.
However, it turns out the "good guy" isn't as good as it claims it is, allows for the "bad guy" to do more things that pisses off the people, then claims it didn't know anything, then retracts and says it did. Either the "good guy" is just another "bad guy" with a false moniker and is outright lying to the public, or is grossly incompetent and easily manipulated by the "bad guy". Either way, the people are getting screwed. So, what's worse, the bad guy we all know about, or the "bad guy" pretending to be our "good guy"?
By that horrible logic, it doesn't matter, since they're both bad guys. But in another way, I wouldn't trust a CEO or business exec with my freedom or liberty because I know he is concerned with neither. He wants what is in my wallet, period.
Ironically, the politicians who run the government don't much care for your freedom or liberty either, because if they did, Congress would NEVER have allowed language to be put into the bailout that created this situation where AIG execs are entitled to their bonuses. Face it, you've been had.
And I do agree that the logic is horrible, especially because one must consider the reality that government is corrupted. The approval ratings of the House and the Senate haven't been in the toilet for the past two years for no reason.
-
A combination of socialism and capitalism... like practically everyone. Everyone looks for that mix between socialism and capitalism. The more time you spend thinking about how capitalist we are, the more time you miss fixing big issues.
OK, i'll stop thinking about the nature of our systems. The combination of two systems of the 19th century is enough for me.
I don't get what you're saying here. Free market was taken to "limits" by conservatives because of what Democrats did? When did Democrats do anything? They haven't controlled anything in any serious capacity since 1994.
globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap is not free market. Check out when this propaganda started.
Do you even understand what the current problems are?
No and i still expect an explanation from those who obviously do.
If public money fails, how did the New Deal work?
This i understand because it happens to be one of my favorite political reactions in history. Perhaps we can at least agree that it started four years after the 29' crash. And were exactly did i say that public money fails?
1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.
That's the main problem of modern democracies, propaganda. IMO it turns them to "democracies" and i still don't know what exactly are we.
-
Actually, the outrage is from both sides. Dems and Republicans are pissed that the government is putting the nation so far into debt that they're grandkids will still be paying for it. Contrary to what you seem to think, most people don't like being told that they have to give money to people who won't work it themselves.
"A majority of Americans (53%) approve of the U.S. government’s expansion to help fix the current economic crisis, but most of this group would like to see the government’s role reduced once the crisis is over."
53% coincidence? Maybe. This is a most recent Gallup poll.
People mostly aren't stupid. They know big spending isn't great, but they also know big spending is needed to get out of the recession.
Show me polls that say people are unhappy with Democrat's or Obama's plans to fix the economy. Everything I've seen shows fairly high numbers. Republicans meanwhile are at pretty nasty lows (recently I saw only 28% identify as Republicans).
The simple fact that people are complaining NOW about government spending (to get out of a recession) as opposed to the previous 8 years (or longer) and that these grass roots parties are sponsored by conservative lobbyists (I have all appropriate links) leads me to believe this is NOT a protest against spending or taxes. This is a protest against Obama.
There is no plan, no alternate ideas to what's being done. It's just outrage. Outrage at Obama by the right wing, and it's dismissed by the majority who see it.
I'm not mad at Obamarama, he's what he is. I am pissed that he's lying about it and can't come off the teleprompter or he'll get himself and his political supporters(not the rank and file but The Usual Suspects) into so much hot water, they'll get boiled.
First off: the teleprompter bit isn't used anymore. That got a lot of play recently about how he was somehow stupid. Until people pulled up videos and links of him talking without one (he did it during the debates somehow) On top of that, there are TONS of images showing all recent Presidents and current right wingers using it themselves. It's tired and beaten.
He's not stupid or an empty suit. Hang it up.
Secondly, what is he lying about? Taxes? The budget? Do you have inside information about a super secret budget or something? They've been very clear about the budget and tax rates (ever since he was campaigning). What exactly has caught you by surprise?
-
I hear this quite a bunch from atheists,
Because it often happens. You obviously are not one of us, how could you know?
I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for. If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are.
Typical christian arrogance. We know "The Truth" and everyone else is wrong. How could you possibly think such absurd things as "atheism is a precursor for christianity"? Oh wait, that's right, you're christian.
I fully support people converting over to Christianity
In other words you support blatant imperialism.
Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).
That was Stalinism.
and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems.
Which shows that all religion is bad. I only mentioned christianity because that is what I have the most experience with and because that is what we are talking about.
-
I'm pretty sure it had a lot to do with the oppresive and imperialistic nature of christianity. As much quotes should have proven, the founding fathers greatly mistrusted christianity's general influence.
Oppressive and imperialistic nature of Christianity? Okay, I hear this quite a bunch from atheists, and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems. Islam can be oppressive and imperialistic (The Ottoman Turks, anyone?), The pagan Roman Empire can be oppressive (slaughtering Christians and Jews for refusal to burn incense to Caesar), Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).
Those don't sound like much better reasons to trust any religion or ideology, Christianity included.
Actually, this is probably the reason you have so many offshoots of Christianity. Having exploited peoples willingness to eagerly repent and wash themselves of sin, clergy of the Roman Catholic Church effectively guilt tripped faithful followers into paying the Sale of Indulgences. Disgusted with what he considered an abuse of Church authority and warping the Word of God, Martin Luther created his own Church which was meant to restore Christianity back to its roots. Later on, the Pilgrims would leave for the New World because they believed that the Church of England had begun corrupt and wanted to move back towards a more Biblical form of Christianity.
I myself, am interested in finding a form of Christianity that's closer to what the Apostles would've practiced, because most forms of modern Christianity have too many thing borrowed from pagan Rome back when the Church was being integrated as the dominant religious force in the Roman Empire. If you go back throughout the history of Christianity, there was quite some debate in regards to the incorporation of icons, images, or any real visual representation of God or Christ, simply because it could be in violation of the commandment "You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them". Now we have statues of the saints, the Holy Mother Mary, and Jesus on the Cross.
This is a flaw of human nature.
Yep.
I think it's erroneous to claim that the Founding Fathers mistrusted Christianity's general influence considering many of them had studied to be clergy of their respected churches while others had participated in Christian freemasonry. I think that this needs to be clarified that some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were critical of the religious establishments run by the clergy (such as the more mythological elements) as opposed to the beliefs and values espoused by Christianity.
I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for. If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are. I fully support people converting over to Christianity, but only if it is an honest conversion (knowing what they are getting into, what the beliefs are and why) and not simply "going with the flow" because it's the trendy thing to do (though that's a poor reason to do anything).
Please restrain from personal attacks, my friend. For all you know he's had excellent experiences with Christians and simply doesn't agree with the ideology. Atheism is not some kind of larval stage of spiritual development.
GB, Kosh posted earlier that he has had some poor experiences with other Christians. As this is coming from him, I take him at his word. There is no personal attack intended. I think you also misinterpreted what I meant by atheism being where he is at in his spiritual development. As we grow and expand our knowledge of the world around us, our perceptions change. One friend I had in college went from his Roman Catholic upbringing to atheism until after college, took a brief dabble in Islam, and then became a parishiner in the Greek Orthodoxy. There is no "stage" of spiritual development in the sense you define it because it is not linear. I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part.
-
><
-
At a guess, I'd say longer considering we no longer are the big exporters that we were then, nor the manufacturing powerhouse, but I could be wrong.
I do know that the Congressional Budget Office claimed that the Trillion dollar "stimulus" package will Triple our debt in 10 years and that the private sector will shrink considerably. It's already been stated that our grandchildren will be mired in debt and paybacks to China for the money we borrowed, so that's approx. 60+ years. assuming that each generation comes about every 30 years (I'm taking into account that if born this year, our children will have children in 30 years, and when their children are in the workplace, 60 years will have passed from this year).
Wait, you're telling me a recession would last longer, but government intervention to help it is bad?
Secondly, the stimulus package won't do what you say it does. The fact that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now on the budgets (they weren't before) and health care is steadily increasing is what ruins the deficit.
You're misunderstanding the stimulus package with the overall budget projections. Yes, the budget will take a big hit in the next year or 3 due to this stimulus, but it is not what is causing this spiraling deficit.
Voting does not mean the government equals you, as you, do not make up the whole of the people. If the government really equaled the people, then I think you need to ask yourself why today, on tax day, we have over 2000 national tea parties going with pissed off Americans protesting the very actions of the federal government bailouts and tax and spend.
No, I don't ask that at all. Because I know those people voted in elections. (I hope they did. If they didn't vote and are pissed, we're screwed).
Firstly, the tea parties are conservative funded protests against tax changes that will LOWER taxes for 95% of the people (so all those people are protesting lower taxes) AND they won't even come into effect until next year. Right now, the taxes they are protesting are Bushes tax rates from last year. This tea party thing is right wing pretend nonsense. Nothing more.
I think that investigations into the financial industry should be sanctioned independently and guilty parties found doing something illegal to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Normally, I'd actually have the government do this, BUT considering the lack of stewardship of Fannie and Freddie by such renowned boobs like Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd, I'd prefer to NOT have them part of the investigation.
I would NOT bail out failing companies. If you wish to reap the rewards of a capitalist system, you must also consider the possibility of failure. It IS a risk-based system.
The rub is the systems you say should fail are vital systems to large swaths of the economy, including credit and funding. These failures would irrevocably harm lots of people. The auto industry for example, a lot of people are tied into that system. If it goes, you can't slap a new owner on it. It doesn't work that way.
When the free market and "the good of the people" butt heads, guess who wins? It's not free market.
I'm no fan of Dodd or Frank (come on, voted out of office next time!) but I understand vital parts of the economy are just that: vital. I fully endorse not putting it in the hands of people who put it in that place.
I think you misinterpreted this analogy as I was comparing the natures of government and the CEOs. What you're supposed to get from this is that Government (or more accurately, the politicians running the government) basically claim to be helping you, while doing the opposite and rewarding bad behavior (due to political contributions, no doubt). In other words, you seem to be pissed off only at the CEOs and dismissive of those in government who allowed for this fiasco to happen, which suggests to me, a double standard due to an ideological belief that government can do no wrong (which of course if hogwash, because government is run by man who is a corruptible creature and thus prone to imperfection). Now, if I am wrong about my analysis of your perceived anger limited only to one party and not the other, please say so and I'll retract that statement.
No, I am perfectly upset about lack of regulation on things in the financial market and housing market. However these businesses screwed up so bad they needed great ol big checks from the government. I want better government regulation on things in the market like credit default swaps and credit ratings (my god, the credit rating fiasco). This implies I don't hold them in the highest regard now.
I am not willing to give a pass to CEOs because "it's the nature of the beast". It's a recession, these markets and industries are faltering, they've needed giant government handouts, I don't think increased government pressure and control on these during this time is such a bad thing.
Ironically, the politicians who run the government don't much care for your freedom or liberty either, because if they did, Congress would NEVER have allowed language to be put into the bailout that created this situation where AIG execs are entitled to their bonuses. Face it, you've been had.
And I do agree that the logic is horrible, especially because one must consider the reality that government is corrupted. The approval ratings of the House and the Senate haven't been in the toilet for the past two years for no reason.
I'm not getting the logic here. CEOs are better cause they're a "pure" bad as opposed to Congress who is worse cause they pretend to like us or something so.... then I get kinda lost.
If I had been had, we wouldn't even be discussing the removal of their bonuses. The theory falls apart because the results are coming in.
-
globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap is not free market. Check out when this propaganda started.
You're not really clarifying what this "crap" is or what the propaganda is. That's what I'm asking. Please explain.
The system is not entirely free market.
No and i still expect an explanation from those who obviously do.
Short version (I expect corrections from others later on. This is not gospel)
Essentially, overvaluation in the market has led to people holding large amounts of bills they can't pay. This applies to both normal people and big businesses.
Normal people have debts like mortgages they can't afford for houses that were overvalued and have fallen in price (see: Sub prime mortgages), credit card debt with rising interest rates (lots of credit companies are raising rates), and of course job losses and 401k losses.
Businesses in the market, which rely on normal people paying bills to pay THEIR bills. These companies go under. No one is handing out credit.
The government is basically forced (insert argument here) to shell out massive amounts of money to let these businesses pay bills and, in turn, give out credit.
Nutshell: everyone ran out of money but still had bills. The only place that still "had" money was the government.
I obviously expect someone to come in and correct me on parts of this. I am not an economist.
1. People just don't understand soclialist programs or government and do whatever the big heads on TV tell them to do.
You talk of the failure with the use of public money. What is this failure you're talking about?
-
Regarding the religious arguments:
Drop the entire f*cking thing! It's not what we're arguing about. Save religious arguments for religious argument threads. Dang, I want to reply to some of those, but it's NOT THE POINT!
The simple fact that people are complaining NOW about government spending (to get out of a recession) as opposed to the previous 8 years (or longer)
I complain NOW because the spending to 'get us out of the recession' has already tripled the debt left by Bush. I enter the workforce in about two years, and I do not want to have to deal with that for my entire working life.
no alternate ideas to what's being done
Have you missed all the other stuff on this thread? Seems every other page we get into a 'we should stop spending' little bout. I would call that an alternate idea.
Secondly, what is he lying about? Taxes?
Bingo, got it in one. Just this month he increased taxes on tobacco, which broke his promise not to raise any taxes for those under 200,000 a year. He lied during his campaign.
No and i still expect an explanation from those who obviously do.
In the 1990's, congress ruled that every American 'should be able to own their own home.' What this did was force banks to provide loans to them, even on risky returns. Enter, the infamous "sub-prime mortgage." Housing bubble expands, people build lots of new houses, more people take loans to buy houses they shouldn't have been able to take. Loans are defaulted on, loan and housing companies start losing money with banks. Insurance companies lack the money to cover insured assets, insurance companies start going down. People start panicking, stock goes way down. Stock going down ruins consumer confidence, now people don't want to go and buy anything they don't expressely need. Cars stop being bought. Car companies report losses, people panic again. Pick any step after defaulted loans and liberally sow bail-outs.
My take on our little crisis.
The rub is the systems you say should fail are vital systems to large swaths of the economy, including credit and funding. These failures would irrevocably harm lots of people.
Oh, no! What ever would Americans do without credit cards and loans! Goodness gracious, now we can't all live beyond our means forever! :rolleyes:
No, I am perfectly upset about lack of regulation on things in the financial market and housing market.
See my explanation for the crisis. Government "regulation" is sort of what caused this.
When the free market and "the good of the people" butt heads, guess who wins?
At this point, "the good of the people" are polar opposites for short-term and long-term solutions.
@Blue Lion: Good explanation. Mine's more of a gathered theory, but I think it works.
-
Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).
That was Stalinism.
No that was a violent assault by a socialist/communist organization bent on obtaining power. Yes I recognize there is a difference in socialism and communism. Socialism is an economic system. Communism is the enforcement of that system on a populace, usually with force.
The anger you see in the demonstrations in the USA today is an example, not of partisan politics or socialism vs. capitalism, it's anger about how large government has gotten. About how much power it's accumulated over our lives.
I don't dislike socialism for what it is, on paper it sounds like a fine idea. I dislike socialism for what it brings along with it, things like a sense of entitlement on the part of the people who don't produce things, which leads to ever more oppressive government, which in turn leads to a denial of the freedoms that are inherent in all people.
Liberal Socialists, not Democrats, run around claiming how much they love they're fellow man by giving them "free" stuff.
Conservatism, not Republicans, love they're fellow man so much that we'll give them a hand up, not a hand out, into providing for themselves instead of relying on someone else to give them something.
Capitalism, by it's nature, inherently benefits mankind AS A SPECIES over the long term because it allows ANY member of the species to provide as much or as little as they want for THEMSELVES without having to be ruled over by someone "with your best interests at heart".
That's difference, Socialist are inherently the Ruled. Capitalist inherently Rule.
I'm sure you'll take that out of context, but whatever. The idea scares you on some level or you wouldn't yell so loudly or long about it.
BTW, you can't spend your way out of a recession, President Roosevelt tried it in '34, the Depression lasted until the War Footing on the part of American industry got going in 42-43.
-
I complain NOW because the spending to 'get us out of the recession' has already tripled the debt left by Bush. I enter the workforce in about two years, and I do not want to have to deal with that for my entire working life.
Triple yearly deficit or triple overall deficit? If you mean overall, you're overlooking Part D prescription coverage by Bush, Iraq and Afghanistan payments (which are not included in budgets), and rising health care costs.
Bush had some big ol 3+ trillion budgets. The Obama plan (and I have looked at it) is supposed to CUT the yearly deficit spending to about half.
Have you missed all the other stuff on this thread? Seems every other page we get into a 'we should stop spending' little bout. I would call that an alternate idea.
Please forgive me for being blunt but "stop spending" is such a half assed vague comment it makes me spit.
Stop spending on what? Defense? Health care? Schools?
I saw and read the Republican Road to Recovery that offers no numbers, no plans. "Stop spending" (while spending) and lowering taxes on the rich is NOT a solution. In fact, it's what got us here.
I would love to see an alternate budget for lowering the deficit whilenot increasing short term spending.
Everything I see is "Cut spending.. somewhere, cut taxes. Magic happens. Tada, problem solved!"
Bingo, got it in one. Just this month he increased taxes on tobacco, which broke his promise not to raise any taxes for those under 200,000 a year. He lied during his campaign.
Where on my paycheck does the tobacco tax come out of my pay? I've never seen that before.
In the 1990's, congress ruled that every American 'should be able to own their own home.' What this did was force banks to provide loans to them, even on risky returns. Enter, the infamous "sub-prime mortgage." Housing bubble expands, people build lots of new houses, more people take loans to buy houses they shouldn't have been able to take. Loans are defaulted on, loan and housing companies start losing money with banks. Insurance companies lack the money to cover insured assets, insurance companies start going down. People start panicking, stock goes way down. Stock going down ruins consumer confidence, now people don't want to go and buy anything they don't expressely need. Cars stop being bought. Car companies report losses, people panic again. Pick any step after defaulted loans and liberally sow bail-outs.
My take on our little crisis.
I enjoy how businesses didn't want to do it! We didn't want to not ask for income verification (among other things) they MADE us! The list of things businesses did in this thing to get money would make you sick. That you pawn off this process (which I might add made these guys more money than we've ever seen here) as a FORCING on them by the government is insane. These companies wanted to get in on money making, and they did. But they couldn't get out in time and now it fell.
Oh, no! What ever would Americans do without credit cards and loans! Goodness gracious, now we can't all live beyond our means forever! :rolleyes:
No houses, no small businesses, no student loans, no cars. Do you just not know how credit works?
See my explanation for the crisis. Government "regulation" is sort of what caused this.
Yea, lack of government regulation and full tight pants on the parts of the market looking for a quick buck caused this. Your passing off of the problem to government is laughable and flat out wrong (except in lack of oversight)
-
Short version
Long version (in the pdf, crap included) : http://www.networkideas.org/featart/oct2008/fa24_Financial_Architecture.htm
You talk of the failure with the use of public money. What is this failure you're talking about?
I'm talking about the extention of the system's failure in this particular crisis with the use of public money. This is a personal opinion, i'm not an economist either and my english are lousy :)
-
I'm talking about the extention of the system's failure in this particular crisis with the use of public money. This is a personal opinion, i'm not an economist either and my english are lousy :)
How can you make a verdict about a plan that has literally just started?
-
I can't. Neither can you i suppose. All i'm doing is comparing the very spirit of it with the "new deal".
-
I can't. Neither can you i suppose. All i'm doing is comparing the very spirit of it with the "new deal".
Which worked? It's two different systems and two different failures. I'm just gonna watch it closely and see how we turn this around.
-
That's why i wrote "the spirit". I don't recall Roosevelt protecting people among those who created the crisis.
-
Didn't the New Deal put in banking and stock market regulation?
-
Yes, it did (from wiki):
"With strident language Roosevelt in 1938 took credit for dethroning the bankers he alleged had caused the debacle:
"Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization."[16]
By March 4, nearly all banks in the country were closed by their governors, and Roosevelt kept them all closed until he could pass new legislation.[17] On March 9, Roosevelt sent to Congress the Emergency Banking Act, drafted in large part by Hoover's Administration; the act was passed and signed into law the same day. It provided for a system of reopening sound banks under Treasury supervision, with federal loans available if needed. Three-quarters of the banks in the Federal Reserve System reopened within the next three days. Billions of dollars in "hoarded" currency and gold flowed back into them within a month, thus stabilizing the banking system. By the end of 1933, 4,004 small local banks would be permanently closed and merged into larger banks. (Their depositors eventually received 86.14 cents on the dollar of their deposits.) In June came the reform which has proved the most significant; Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insured deposits for up to $2,500.
In March and April in a series of Acts of Congress and executive orders Roosevelt and Congress suspended the gold standard for United States currency. Under the gold standard, the Federal Reserve was prevented from lowering interest rates and was instead forced to raise rates to protect the dollar. Actions to suspend the gold standard included Executive Order 6073, the Emergency Banking Act, Executive Order 6102, Executive Order 6111, the 1933 Banking Act and House Joint Resolution 192. Anyone holding significant amounts of gold coinage was mandated to exchange it for the existing fixed price of US dollars, after which the US would no longer pay gold on demand for the dollar, and gold would no longer be considered valid legal tender for debts in private and public contracts. The dollar was allowed to float freely on foreign exchange markets with no guaranteed price in gold, only to be fixed again at a significantly lower level a year later with the passage of the Gold Reserve Act in 1934. Markets immediately responded well to the suspension, although it was assumed to be temporary.[18]
The economy had hit bottom in March 1933 and then started to expand. As historian Broadus Mitchell notes, "Most indexes worsened until the summer of 1932, which may be called the low point of the depression economically and psychologically."[19] Economic indicators show the economy reached nadir in the first days of March, then began a steady, sharp upward recovery. Thus the Federal Reserve Index of Industrial Production hit its lowest point of 52.8 in July 1930 (with 1935-39 = 100) and was practically unchanged at 54.3 in March 1933; however by July 1933, it reached 85.5, a dramatic rebound of 57% in four months. Recovery was steady and strong until 1937. Except for employment, the economy by 1937 surpassed the levels of the late 1920s. The Recession of 1937 was a temporary downturn. Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s but failed to advance further until the war".
And i wrote people, not organizations. Persons.
-
Doesn't this entire process protect people? I'm missing the point of what we're talking about here?
-
I hear this quite a bunch from atheists,
Because it often happens. You obviously are not one of us, how could you know?
I know several people who are atheists whom have never claimed that they were being oppressed by their peers to join Christianity or any other religion. Granted, it's not the same as actually being an atheist, so in that regard, I can never truly know until having found myself in that situation.
I'm sorry that you've had poor experiences with other Christians if you were being pressured into something you're not ready for. If atheism is where you are in you spiritual development as a person, then, quite frankly, that's where you are.
Typical christian arrogance. We know "The Truth" and everyone else is wrong. How could you possibly think such absurd things as "atheism is a precursor for christianity"? Oh wait, that's right, you're christian.
I wouldn't say it's arrogance because I haven't told or coerced you to convert. Oh, I won't deny that I think Christianity is superior to atheism anymore than you would argue vice versa. However, as I realize that you don't share that belief and nothing I can say or do will convince otherwise, it's a decision I leave to you. If you decided to believe in Christianity, simply because I told you to, that would result in something disengenuine at best.
I could also argue that Atheism is arrogant in that it claims that because there is no God, there is no Absolute Truth, and thus it is all man-made nonsense, to which man decides what is right and what is wrong, and thus standards of morality are subjective to one's point of view. This allows man to make himself as God and decide what is moral and what is not(after all, man is a reasonable and rational creature and thus knows best!) The fallacy with this line of thinking is that one must neglect to take into account man's flawed nature and thus making his judgement erroneous. This can be especially dangerous if such a person is in a place of power. The idea that only man knows what's best can be construed as arrogance.
And finally, if the belief that one thing is superior to something else is considered arrogance, how can one consider the belief of no god to be any less arrogant than the belief that there is a god? After all, they are in direct conflict with each others positions in which (unless you're agnostic) the one you go with, you decide is superior to the other, and thus are displaying arrogance. Anytime a person makes a decision they are going with what they believe to be a superior choice. After all, it is illogical to choose something that is inferior. If arrogance is due (or at least in part) to the result of excessive pride, I'm afraid we have a problem, since it's a big teaching among Catholics to never be too full of oneself (how this plays out in reality may vary person to person as, once again human beings are flawed and prone to make mistakes).
I fully support people converting over to Christianity
In other words you support blatant imperialism.
Not at all. If someone converts to Christianity through their own choice, then its their own. I'm not terribly interested in forced conversions because they're corrupt and dishonest. This is hardly the mindset of someone who wishes to "willfully" impose their value system on other nations. How other peoples rule themselves is none of my concern until it starts affecting me. However, I still retain the right to form my own opinions of them and their systems, just like you. I believe this is called "Freedom of Speech".
Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).
That was Stalinism.
The Communist Manifesto dicates state-enforced atheism is a primary tenet. This isn't something that is unique to the regime of Josef Stalin.
However, despite this, while all major communist nations are atheistic in nature, that does not mean all atheists are blood-lusting megalo-maniacs who are evil incarnate.
and I'm going to have to ask just what is so oppressive and imperialistic of Christianity that cannot be found in other belief systems.
Which shows that all religion is bad. I only mentioned christianity because that is what I have the most experience with and because that is what we are talking about.
And yet communism practiced by the USSR and PROC, North Korea, and a slew of other nations combined that mandate state-enforced atheism mass-murdered something like 100 million people in under a century. I can easily argue that lack of religion is bad.
This really has more to do with man being an imperfect creature and having a flawed nature.
Kosh, let it be clear, that asides from certain philosophical disagreements, I really don't bear you any ill will. I do apologize for any lack of clarity on my part or improper articulation. Understand that I can support your right to come to your own conclusions without having to agree with them myself.
-
Doesn't this entire process protect people? I'm missing the point of what we're talking about here?
People among those who caused the crisis. You want names?
-
Yea you're not making it clear. Are they keeping them from being prosecuted for crimes or allowing them to continue doing the same practices?
-
Yea you're not making it clear. Are they keeping them from being prosecuted for crimes or allowing them to continue doing the same practices?
From the previous Wiki's quote: "With strident language Roosevelt in 1938 took credit for dethroning the bankers he alleged had caused the debacle".
Unless that i' missing something, nothing similar to this happened in US in the present crisis. And certainly not to EU. Only a few heads "dropped", and even then: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23653190-details/Government+under+pressure+over+Sir+Fred+Goodwin's+pension/article.do
By "protecting" i don't mean "keeping them from being prosecuted for crimes or allowing them to continue doing the same practices". Allowing them to keep their jobs, is protection enough (or paying them millions to leave them).
And don't take me wrong, this has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with common sense: By leaving these people practically unpunished, any recovery plan, as brilliant as it may be, will never gain the full support of the rest of the people, the majority, a suffering majority.
Roosevelt had that common sense, our leaders don't seem to.
And, to my humble logic, this is definitely beyond common sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner
Would you seriously trust this guy to solve the problem in US?
-
He doesn't solve the problem? Doesn't all this have to run through Congress?
-
So far: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/obamas-aig-comments-raise_b_175444.html
-
And yet communism practiced by the USSR and PROC, North Korea, and a slew of other nations combined that mandate state-enforced atheism mass-murdered something like 100 million people in under a century.
Communism in those states ended up turning into a religion of its own. All of these states had huge personality cults, especially north korea. Rigid adherence to doctrine, blindly following the great leader's word to the letter, intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with said doctrine. All the hallmarks of a religious cult.
I can easily argue that lack of religion is bad.
Lack of any sort of religion or cults has never happened in the history of the world until now. Look at Sweden, they are the least religious country in the world and yet they are the free-est, most satisfied, and one of the most prosperous in the world.
The Communist Manifesto dicates state-enforced atheism is a primary tenet.
And the reason for this was because when it was written in the 19th century religion was still being used as a tool to keep exploited people in line.
Not at all. If someone converts to Christianity through their own choice, then its their own.
What about if it is based on major misunderstandings and scare tactics?
I could also argue that Atheism is arrogant in that it claims that because there is no God, there is no Absolute Truth,
And I could refute that. By removing god it allows us to find our own answers to how things work. God did it is a total cop-out. I don't see anything about quarks or leptons in the bible, do you? Besides, there are many parts of the bible that are not followed, such as the part about selling your daughter into slavery. The bible is supposed to be "the word of god" and therefore infallible, so that also makes it the "absolute truth"?
and thus it is all man-made nonsense, to which man decides what is right and what is wrong, and thus standards of morality are subjective to one's point of view.
Not really. Things that hurt other people are wrong, full stop. Things that hurt yourself are things you shouldn't do, but it is your choice.
Oh, I won't deny that I think Christianity is superior to atheism
No doubt.
This allows man to make himself as God and decide what is moral and what is not(after all, man is a reasonable and rational creature and thus knows best!)
Based on the mythos in the bible god is no better. "Worship me OR ELSE", yeah, real mature.
-
Except we aren't a pure capitalistic system. No one is.
But i would like to know what exactly are we.
For the last years we were something like globalization-free market-neoliberalism crap. Mainly "Sosialist's" were those who brought this situation on Europe and on US were the democrats. And the consevatives took advandage of it and pushed it to the limits.
Are you saying that the socialists pushed forward the neoliberal agenda? Because although I find that statement kinda hilarious, there's a sad truth to it: social democrats and other left-wing parties were - USA notwithstanding, they are a two-party corporatist country where the right-wing has had de facto control of state economy since 1994 - crucial in tearing down the very structures that are currently proposed as an answer to this... "disaster capitalism".
Of course, that completely misses the point that the political scene of all of the Western World has been heavily corporatist and right-wing for the last 30 years, especially in 2000s. They have had the control, and the leftists have been either left on a shore or have sheepisly followed the butchers. Socialists are a fun bunch: usually they disagree with each other and then with everyone else and get nothing done, but many have viewed the neoliberal attitude with disgust. And party heads have marched on, leaving the real socialist alternative marginalized and toothless.
What i see happening now is the extention of this failure whith the use of public money (regardless the US debt to Cnina :lol:)
No, what you are seeing now is what happens when there are no regulations and when market has a free reign and sovereignity over state actors! This, combined with extremely wasteful spending in USA. "Hmmm our system is ancient and relies on debt and hot air we better rise our deficit into stellar amounts and hope for the best!" what
And as a response, Americans start to feel that socialism could be a better system (which socialism by the way?) and Europeans do the same, turning to the "left" parties, the very same who created this mess in the first place.
Well they didn't create it, they just didn't oppose all kinds of neoliberal **** enough. I haven't liked social democrats since the early 1990s, because here in Europe they just turned into slightly pinkish right wing party.
So what are we? (Yes, i know, we are idiots and speak for yourself peterv)
USA is big business. It's stuck on its system - two extremely powerful parties which are, of course, targets for extremely intensive lobbying. As a home for really, really lots of money the owners of that capital do wield more than enough power to stop all developement that could threaten their state. USA is held hostage by the same system that, at one period of time, allowed it to rise from nothing to world-class power.
What do we have? Too little regulation and everything goes to ****? The obivous solution is to scrap all regulation! What do we have, private companies instead of state monopolies? The obvious solution is to break them hard and watch the cities burn! What do we have, attempts to to put public money to long-term use such as infrastructure projects? The obvious solution is to stop this and watch everything go to ****!
-
Atheism can be oppressive and imperialistic (Soviet Union sent all the clergy to Siberia and the churches became "musuems"; after all, 50+million dead Russians can't be wrong, can they?).
That was Stalinism.
No that was a violent assault by a socialist/communist organization bent on obtaining power. Yes I recognize there is a difference in socialism and communism. Socialism is an economic system. Communism is the enforcement of that system on a populace, usually with force.
The anger you see in the demonstrations in the USA today is an example, not of partisan politics or socialism vs. capitalism, it's anger about how large government has gotten. About how much power it's accumulated over our lives.
They just kinda... forgot about that for the last few decades? Are these the same people who idolize Reagan, and let me guess, these people were definitely NOT on the streets during the last 8 years!
I don't dislike socialism for what it is, on paper it sounds like a fine idea. I dislike socialism for what it brings along with it, things like a sense of entitlement on the part of the people who don't produce things
buh?
Who produces and what? People are granted rights and humanity, even if they don't fit your extremely narrow and inherently dangerous criteria of what gives right to entitlement! A writer produces words. A child produces nothing. A clerck shuffles papers.
, which leads to ever more oppressive government, which in turn leads to a denial of the freedoms that are inherent in all people.
Prove that freedoms are inherent to people. And prove how Nordic states, which have since time immemorial enacted socialist policies are somehow less free than the nations which... do not...
Wait. Define socialist policies! This should clear this one out.
Liberal Socialists, not Democrats, run around claiming how much they love they're fellow man by giving them "free" stuff.
This is... this is just so rich. Are you trying to purposefully muddy the waters by taking a method of keeping people alive and then make it the goal? Because it surely reads as such!
Conservatism, not Republicans, love they're fellow man so much that we'll give them a hand up, not a hand out, into providing for themselves instead of relying on someone else to give them something.
bootstraps
a child can bootstrap his way out of the life in a municipal dump
BOOTSTRAPS
"**** you I got mine" in more eloquent manner.
Capitalism, by it's nature, inherently benefits mankind AS A SPECIES over the long term because it allows ANY member of the species to provide as much or as little as they want for THEMSELVES without having to be ruled over by someone "with your best interests at heart".
Again: **** you I got mine.
That's difference, Socialist are inherently the Ruled. Capitalist inherently Rule.
Yes I obviously see that right now. That's why private companies are screaming for money... from the government.
I'm sure you'll take that out of context, but whatever. The idea scares you on some level or you wouldn't yell so loudly or long about it.
BTW, you can't spend your way out of a recession, President Roosevelt tried it in '34, the Depression lasted until the War Footing on the part of American industry got going in 42-43.
oh for christ's sake are you now circulating this talking point. Somehow these guys pop up every now and then.
Actually that depression's worst parts were over in 1933, then GDP rose until another recession hit at 1937. Then it rose back to normal by late 1938.
Tell me who stopped the recession in 1993, 1998 and 2002. Who was it! And who caused all those recessions! In the United States, by the way.
-
You thought the last bit was a little too over the top? I liked it :p
-
We had a recession in '98?
-
I thought that was Asia.
-
I recall Russia had a major meltdown that year, Asia did the year before that but from what I recall the US was doing very well. After all we were in the middle of the tech bubble at the time.
-
Prove that freedoms are inherent to people.
This is what the argument is truly about.
You, and people like you and who pander to you and so forth, believe that a person's right devolve from the state. That all people are inherently serfs or sheep or whatever, that prefer to led and cared for like children by some big powerful leader or group of leaders.
I, and people like me and who pander to my group and so forth, believe that a persons rights devolve from nothing, but that they are inherent in them from conception and governments exist to limit or deny these rights.
Now, so you can take that out context in your next post, government exists as part of the social contract to provide order for a society. This does not imply that the government is the source of your rights and freedom.
Also
And I could refute that. By removing god it allows us to find our own answers to how things work. God did it is a total cop-out. I don't see anything about quarks or leptons in the bible, do you? Besides, there are many parts of the bible that are not followed, such as the part about selling your daughter into slavery. The bible is supposed to be "the word of god" and therefore infallible, so that also makes it the "absolute truth"?
This gets me in trouble with my folks cause they are more traditional than I am. I believe the universe, in all it's complexity and beauty, exists to glorify it's creator. And by studying the universe, and learning how perfect this complexity is, we glorify Him. Every star, every planet, every lepton is proof that God exists to me. Every new discovery isn't some new piece of knowledge that didn't exist, it was already there, waiting to be revealed.
As you have repeatedly gone on ad hominem about, the Bible was written by a man. When Genesis was put to papyrus or whatever, did mankind at that time have an understanding of cosmology or particle physics? Did they have a point of reference or understanding of the physical forces involved in how a star functions or why the sun sets or anything we take for granted in our ever more enlightened culture? Not really, no. So why would you expect a 10,000 page dissertation about such things? It was a record of what until that time had been passed down as an oral history. Oral histories have a remarkable habit of remaining the same over passing generations.
-
As you have repeatedly gone on ad hominem about, the Bible was written by a man.
Correction, it was written by many men, who later got together in a committee to decide what should go in it and what shouldn't. However a great many in christianity believe it was the word of god.
When Genesis was put to papyrus or whatever, did mankind at that time have an understanding of cosmology or particle physics? Did they have a point of reference or understanding of the physical forces involved in how a star functions or why the sun sets or anything we take for granted in our ever more enlightened culture?
No, so they invented things like god(s) and miracles to explain it because at the time it was beyond their understandings. That doesn't mean any of it is the reality though.
-
Lemme tell you a story.
I was traveling with my family to my Grandmother's for Christmas some years ago. A retired gentleman over estimated the space he had for his RV to make it across into the northbound side of the highway and impacted the car I was riding in. It caved in the entire passenger side of the car. The window on the door I was nearest, which I had been resting my head on as I had been sleeping, exploded inward.
By rights, by face should've been shredded and I should have had some other trauma as well.
I walked away from the wreck with only a scratch behind my right ear.
That proves to me that there is someone, or something, that is out there and it cares about my well being. It's faith.
Science can explain the how of everything, I believe that with all my heart. But it can't tell us why. That's faith.
You can't prove faith. There's no way to quantify the existence of an afterlife or angels or God.
-
That's called probability. Whenever something happens theres always a certain chance that one outcome or another will happen. Even if the odds of something are one in a billion, it can still happen at least once however unlikely.
-
That proves to me that there is someone, or something, that is out there and it cares about my well being.
But yet didn't give a toss about people who did die in accidents?
Furthermore if you're claiming that miracle saves are due to God then what causes freak accidents? God being a bastard and deciding to kill someone?
-
I, and people like me and who pander to my group and so forth, believe that a persons rights devolve from nothing, but that they are inherent in them from conception and governments exist to limit or deny these rights.
Now, so you can take that out context in your next post, government exists as part of the social contract to provide order for a society. This does not imply that the government is the source of your rights and freedom.
Without government, I decide I would really enjoy eating you for lunch. Where is the right to life at that moment?
Your stuff looks really pretty. No cops to stop me, looks like they're mine. What right to property?
-
It's funny how the idea about helping other people seems to originate from (and be preferred by) godless atheist scum whereas the ideal society of good Christians [generalization warning] seems to be a model where the state only has the most rudimentary functions (safety, jurisdiction) and everyone basically has to get along on their own or perish.
Just an observation of mine. Don't be flamed (I might've worded it a bit provocatively) but think about it for a while. What kind of a society would Jesus want to live in, a capitalist one or one with some socialist features? :nervous:
-
A society where social security would not be needed because all the people are nice to each other. So that would be a capatalist one.
I think he would support socialism, though, for the reason that atleast the goverment is nice to its people for a change (the last goverment he lived in nailed him to a cross).
-
Actually, I thought it should be "any society that promotes goodwill, respect towards everyone and 100% worship to God".
This, of course, would mean no Television shows like American Idol and Top Gear.
-
Prove that freedoms are inherent to people.
This is what the argument is truly about.
You, and people like you and who pander to you and so forth, believe that a person's right devolve from the state. That all people are inherently serfs or sheep or whatever, that prefer to led and cared for like children by some big powerful leader or group of leaders.
classy
Seriously though, I rather have a wise leader who I can vote out of the office and live a happy life than trying to find someone to dominate. But if that's what you want to do - while calling yourself Christian, for crying out loud - go ahead and find someone to suppress. I mean, after all, since you can say that it's safe for me to say that you would like to find someone to keep down, right?
I, and people like me and who pander to my group and so forth, believe that a persons rights devolve from nothing, but that they are inherent in them from conception and governments exist to limit or deny these rights.
Now, so you can take that out context in your next post, government exists as part of the social contract to provide order for a society. This does not imply that the government is the source of your rights and freedom.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow? But I do not believe in universal rights - they are only a part of the society which *drumroll* is controlled by an entity known as the government! There is a nation where there is no government and areas where the government has no control at all and guess what - these places SUCK.
Also hey, governments also PROTECT these rights. You know? Like, government punishes people for killing other people, governments punish people for violently silencing other people, government gives food and shelter to homeless people, government grants people means to move freely, literacy... All kinds of stuff! You seem to have extremely narrow and black-and-white vision where gubmint:BAD. You grant that governments are a part of a social contract, but STILL think they exist to limit freedoms?
What good is your precious freedom when Bob can shoot you in the head and walk away? You're free to... die in the gutter?
-
A society where social security would not be needed because all the people are nice to each other. So that would be a capatalist one.
So, fantasy land?
There is so much wrong in that statement I cannot begin to write a reply showing it. Short version: Someone will always be pissed.
-
It's funny how the idea about helping other people seems to originate from (and be preferred by) godless atheist scum whereas the ideal society of good Christians [generalization warning] seems to be a model where the state only has the most rudimentary functions (safety, jurisdiction) and everyone basically has to get along on their own or perish.
I can explain this! This is a very American idea and you're wrong; its not weird, its pervert!
Ok hey ho let's go! Ever since the immigrants settled in the states, they for some reason started to view religion a bit differently. It was a common thing to talk about. It was not private. A good citizen was a Christian citizen, and **** those Presbyterians/mormons/Lutherans etc.
Time goes on and the idea that a good American is devoutedly Christian is embedded in the society. At some point some idiot gets an idea that a good American is also devoutedly pro-market. BOOTSTRAPS! People die and that period goes away and we emerge into the 1940s. Good Christian americans.
Now these same guys who still think that JESUS=EXCELLENT don't really read the Bible, they just know this is a good thing, right? And that free market is a good thing, right? So no contradiction. They're both good! We're all set for the final stage of the perversion: After World War 2 people start to lobby for uncontrolled markets, completely free trade and so on. This is, of course, because the Markets Must Prosper! The politicans agree. The public narrative is turned into "Free Capitalism = EXCELLENT". This adds to the previous Christian angle. Time goes on and the same parties who had driven the free market capitalism (again) infiltrate the Republican party as well. Same time devoutly Christian and rabidly pro-market, these right-wing politicians start to dismantle all the social security nets built so far, always yammering how Christian and good they are and how this... this Amtrak is a bane to society. And people, they take it, hook line and sinker! I mean, these business owners and the politicians they control, they say they are Christian and they want to scrap the public funding for some project, they have to be good Christians, it is I who is in error, I must now quickly recalibrate my Christometer! Business laughs since people are so easy to control. Say that Christianity is about juggling? They'll juggle, eventually.
The result is completely unbeliavable: from the very compassionate writings of a disobedient proto-hippie - and his teachings had influenced proto-communistic societies weeeeell before 1900s, mind you! - these people take some parts but completely miss the "love thy neighbour" bit. They also become proponents of essentially ****ing the poor in the ass, because there is no other way you can describe the inherently suicidial policies the right-wing has pursued for the last 40 years. Since these both are "good" the followers do not really see the contradiction. After all, if two things are good they cannot contradict themselves, right? So now we have vocal Christians who have absolutely no qualms whatsoever to let orphans live in the street, AIDS patients lacking medicine and giving more money to the military.
There's also a comedic side of the coin to this: since everything good must be the same thing, so must be everything bad. Have you noticed lately how people completely confuse socialism, communism, atheism and fascism? That's the same thing, only reversed: these things are bad, therefore they are the same!
-
Without government, I decide I would really enjoy eating you for lunch. Where is the right to life at that moment?
Your stuff looks really pretty. No cops to stop me, looks like they're mine. What right to property?
In my own hands. It does not come from some government. Oh, you want to take something from me, or try to kill me? Go ahead and try. I have guns :D.
(lol, why can't you post stuff like this on the 'Nation of Cowards' thread?)
When you come right down to it, to me there seem to be two rights, no more, no less: The right to have lived, and the right to make choices. Anything else is a priviledge either given to you or that you take.
-
Without government, I decide I would really enjoy eating you for lunch. Where is the right to life at that moment?
Your stuff looks really pretty. No cops to stop me, looks like they're mine. What right to property?
In my own hands. It does not come from some government. Oh, you want to take something from me, or try to kill me? Go ahead and try. I have guns :D.
(lol, why can't you post stuff like this on the 'Nation of Cowards' thread?)
When you come right down to it, to me there seem to be two rights, no more, no less: The right to have lived, and the right to make choices. Anything else is a priviledge either given to you or that you take
If anyone could agree on what belonged to who, and who needs what, and that it's not justifiable to take things, that'd be a decent worldview...but as it is it doesn't stand up to reality.
People are very, very flawed. For example, if you used your firearm to regularly deter crime, you'd be much more likely to kill Black individuals, just because of subconscious stereotypic associations. There's no way to discipline yourself out of it.
-
Without government, I decide I would really enjoy eating you for lunch. Where is the right to life at that moment?
Your stuff looks really pretty. No cops to stop me, looks like they're mine. What right to property?
In my own hands. It does not come from some government. Oh, you want to take something from me, or try to kill me? Go ahead and try. I have guns :D.
I have just a place for you!
It's in the Horn of Africa!
(lol, why can't you post stuff like this on the 'Nation of Cowards' thread?)
We need a bigass "right vs. left talking points deathmatch" thread
When you come right down to it, to me there seem to be two rights, no more, no less: The right to have lived, and the right to make choices. Anything else is a priviledge either given to you or that you take.
Everyone makes choices all the time, the only thing that varies is the scope. Making a simple fact of life a right strips away the importance of rights, wouldn't you say? I have a right to breathe, that's my ultimate right! **** someone took it away now i'm dead **** these rights.
The right to live is also really banal: you have a right to live but no right to healthcare or food -> tot. It's a goal, not means.
-
When you come right down to it, to me there seem to be two rights, no more, no less: The right to have lived, and the right to make choices. Anything else is a priviledge either given to you or that you take.
Ok.
So.
Children born to crack-addicted mothers and who have no other choice than to grow up in the violent and dirty inner city.
Ethiopians and Sudanese who have no means of travel or acquiring basic food or shelter.
People who develop debilitating health conditions because of environmental pollution or someone else's actions.
What you're saying is essentially "**** them", right? Well, it's clear you've never been in a situation where you've just been unlucky or forces beyond your control have affected your ability to live, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Tell you what, I'll come and take all your money, your clothes, and everything you take for granted. You've got nowhere to go, no means to survive. Those soup kitchens, unemployment benefits, the free healthcare, and welfare are all looking pretty tempting, right?
You know, not everyone who gets on social security and the evil socialist government welfare programs are there because they're lazy ****s who don't want to work or made the wrong choices in life.
-
:yes:
-
Children born to crack-addicted mothers and who have no other choice than to grow up in the violent and dirty inner city.
So the solution is to perpetuate the circumstances that lead to the mother getting addicted to crack in the first place?
Ethiopians and Sudanese who have no means of travel or acquiring basic food or shelter.
Why do they not have any means of travel or acquiring basic food and shelter? Is it a nation of quadriplegics?
People who develop debilitating health conditions because of environmental pollution or someone else's actions.
Why is it my responsibility to clean up other peoples messes?
-
Children born to crack-addicted mothers and who have no other choice than to grow up in the violent and dirty inner city.
So the solution is to perpetuate the circumstances that lead to the mother getting addicted to crack in the first place?
What would you mean by this in this particular context?
Why do they not have any means of travel or acquiring basic food and shelter? Is it a nation of quadriplegics?
ffffffffffffff
Why is it my responsibility to clean up other peoples messes?
FFFFFFFFFFFFFF
the stench of misanthropy is strong in here
-
Children born to crack-addicted mothers and who have no other choice than to grow up in the violent and dirty inner city.
So the solution is to perpetuate the circumstances that lead to the mother getting addicted to crack in the first place?
Social security and welfare are not precedents to someone being addicted to crack.
The perpetuation of an addictive substance known as crack is a precedent to someone being addicted to crack.
Ethiopians and Sudanese who have no means of travel or acquiring basic food or shelter.
Why do they not have any means of travel or acquiring basic food and shelter? Is it a nation of quadriplegics?
So, it's their fault their countries are plunged in civil war, famine, and drought? Or that the Sudanese government is involved in ethnic cleansing and genocide? Given Sudan's vast land and heavy rainfall, it has a huge potential to be a breadbasket for Africa, but the government has failed to capitalize on that. So, people starve, not because they're lazy, but because of outside circumstances.
Since you want to be snide and assume that just having legs and arms to move around with is enough to get someone shelter and food, then let's talk that. Suppose Sudanese and Ethiopians flee to somewhere else, where would they go? The Sahara to the west? The largely-unarable and already-overpopulated Egypt to the North? Or south to Somalia? Where do they go? Do you have a solution, or are you so blinded by an unfounded idea that all poor people are lazy or all people who starve are stupid that you can't possibly be brought to analyze people's environments or their situations?
People who develop debilitating health conditions because of environmental pollution or someone else's actions.
Why is it my responsibility to clean up other peoples messes?
Because your Christian self wants to make life better for the people around you.
Because you want to be a good steward of the world your Lord gave you.
Because Jesus H. ****ing Christ himself told you to be a nice guy to people around you.
Because every single monotheistic religious text from the Middle East has told you that charity, humility, and kindness are the holiest of virtues.
Or, if you want to play on the selfish plane, then you'll want to clean up those messes, because you may very well be affected by them in the future as well.
-
That last bit was particularly well-said, nuclear.
You're like the anti-Nuke!
-
That last bit was particularly well-said, nuclear.
You're like the anti-Nuke!
I don't think the basic human decency works around here
-
Because your Christian self wants to make life better for the people around you.
Because you want to be a good steward of the world your Lord gave you.
Because Jesus H. ****ing Christ himself told you to be a nice guy to people around you.
Because every single monotheistic religious text from the Middle East has told you that charity, humility, and kindness are the holiest of virtues.
QFT. I'll go a step further and say quite a few "good" christians (not all obviously) don't really care about the earth or the people on it. Why should they? They believe the end of the world will come in their lifetime and after that we will get a new earth, so why bother caring about this one?
-
They believe the end of the world will come in their lifetime and after that we will get a new earth, so why bother caring about this one?
If they believe this thing they seriously need to reed their books.
The new testament is full of "living instructions" from God himself.
-
In my own hands. It does not come from some government. Oh, you want to take something from me, or try to kill me? Go ahead and try. I have guns :D.
Let's say I have bigger guns? (I don't). It's not really a right if someone can take it away with no recourse. What about people without guns? Do they have a right to life?
When you come right down to it, to me there seem to be two rights, no more, no less: The right to have lived, and the right to make choices. Anything else is a priviledge either given to you or that you take.
They are all privileges. The two rights you've listed can be removed. Only the actions of a society can stop that. No hand of god will come down and stop me if for some crazy reason I start force sterilizing people and putting them in boxes.
-
I'm not sure if it's misanthropy I'm detecting or a very cold, calculating logic devoid of any empathy.
It's funny because at least one person was advocating free markets earlier in this thread on the basis of human nature. Is it really so out of bounds of human nature to go out on a limb for another, possibly help a person or people out at *gasp* possible detriment to oneself?
Kosh has a funny point too. These people dismiss climate change with appalling nonchalance but in their hubris forget to check themselves when they complain about the financial burden their kids will endure due to "that huge deficit" and "gubment spending." It's like, "I don't care about the future, the Rapture will take care of ev-wait, higher taxes for my kids? PSYCHE!"
One final thing before I go. That bit about walking out of the Sudan was cute. I'm glad it's not a bigass country where crazy horse-mounted Kalashnikov gunmen roam the wilderness unchecked and potable water might be hard to come by. I'm sure everyone that posts on these forums (0%) has made a trek like that before.
As Janos said, FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF Fff
-
.
-
QFT. I'll go a step further and say quite a few "good" christians (not all obviously) don't really care about the earth or the people on it. Why should they? They believe the end of the world will come in their lifetime and after that we will get a new earth, so why bother caring about this one?
That is the most inane, uneducated statement I've ever heard.
Humans of every generation have read prophecy from many sources and determined that they were living in the "End Times". Most prophecy is like that, vague to the point of illegibility. Only a few sources are detailed enough so that the faithful, and anyone else who cares to read it will recognize what is happening.
Humanity has this peculiar fixation with the world ending. I guess it has to do with some deep seated "revenge" thing or sommat. The End Times, when ever they come, will be rightly feared as they will be the most tumultuous times any human will have ever seen. I can speak for my self, and at least most of the local congregations around here, when I say that while we don't desire the apocalypse, we still want to be prepared for it. To listen to you, you make out like every Christian is working daily to bring the End Times upon us....
-
Are you saying there are no Christians who kinda skirt around the word of Christ and look only to making it to heaven themselves?
-
No, there are far too many of us to make such a generalization.
Christians, everything else being equal, are flawed humans just like the rest of world, we just try to minimize certain of the flaws through the teachings and commandments of Christ.
That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it(see the recently publicized memo from the DoHS about the nature of so called potential Right Wing terrorist...that's a whole separate rant).
-
Gonna repeat this!
Children born to crack-addicted mothers and who have no other choice than to grow up in the violent and dirty inner city.
So the solution is to perpetuate the circumstances that lead to the mother getting addicted to crack in the first place?
What would you mean by this in this particular context?
-
That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it
ARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH THE EVIL LIBERALS ARE OUT TO GET CHRISTIANITY
Tell me when exactly Christianity has been persecuted in the US. ...oh, it hasn't? That's what I thought!
Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that
-
That is the most inane, uneducated statement I've ever heard.
Humans of every generation have read prophecy from many sources and determined that they were living in the "End Times". Most prophecy is like that, vague to the point of illegibility. Only a few sources are detailed enough so that the faithful, and anyone else who cares to read it will recognize what is happening.
James Watt, the first Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan administration, testified before the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. “God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back,” Watt said.
source (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:9P52XBkfy_kJ:www.cennz.org/SPattemore1.pdf+reagan+secretary+revelations&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
Oh and then there's this one:
Ronald Reagan, in a 1980 interview with Jim Bakker, said, "We may be the generation that sees Armageddon." Before that, in 1971, Reagan commented to James Mills regarding events in Libya, "For the first time ever, everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ." Obviously, Reagan thought that the end would come SOON! And to think that a man with apocalyptic delusions like this had his finger on the nuclear button for 8 years. (Grosso p.8)
source (http://www.abhota.info/endsoon.htm)
It's a wonder we made it out of the 80's with these psychos in charge.
Humanity Western and Muslim culture has this peculiar fixation with the world ending.
Fixed. In all the time I've been in Asia I have never seen or heard any sort of doomsday talk. When I tell people about these ideas, they rightly think it is crazy.
To listen to you, you make out like every Christian is working daily to bring the End Times upon us....
No but a good percentage in America are. Why do you think so many Evangicals so blindly support Israel?
To give another quote:
These millennialist beliefs about the end of the world are widespread in the United States. A Gallup poll taken in March 2002 revealed that "46 per cent of Americans describe themselves as 'born-again' or evangelical." In a 1999 Newsweek poll 71 per cent of evangelicals said they believed the world would end in a battle between Jesus and the Anti-Christ at 'Armageddon'.
Say what you will about surveys, but that does go a long way towards explaining many of the Bush administrations pro-Israeli and generally anti-environmental policies (http://newhumanist.org.uk/528)
-
That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it(see the recently publicized memo from the DoHS about the nature of so called potential Right Wing terrorist...that's a whole separate rant).
What? You miss out on the militia movement? Hell, you miss out on Timothy McVeigh? A terrorist requires belief. Any old kind will do, but the kool-aid is most easily imbibed through the method of religion.
However, you also make a cardinal sin.
Faith, in this country, is a personal matter. We have never had a state religion. Conformity is not a valued objective in the conciousness of the American religious. It never could be, considering the variety that were represented when the country was founded. This is why we host the Society of Pious the X (unfortunately).
-
I'm just gonna say that I am flabbergasted that you are trying to link religion and the enviroment.
Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Dominion is a funny word, there are 2 definitions that apply:
dominance or power through legal authority also a region marked off for administrative or other purposes
A literal explanation is that God gave man ownership of the world to do with what he saw fit. The part of that that you will walk away with is that enviromental destruction is biblically endorsed. Most people take the second definition to be the more literal one, that he handed the world and the beast of the field and every herb of the ground, to use the language from the book, and made it subservient to man as for food and for man to care for and maintain the world for his own benefit.
I adhere to the second one, BTW.
-
If you look at the first non-negative command in the bible, I believe it's actually to go forth and name all the beasts.
Looks like God's first non-prohibitory command was an endorsement of science!
-
the free healthcare...
Nothing is free.
I'm not sure if it's misanthropy I'm detecting or a very cold, calculating logic devoid of any empathy.
Democrats have no brains, Republicans have no hearts, or so it goes.
Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that
I generally hear of prayers in schools being banned in general, not the just act of forcing others to pray, so you're pretty close to a blue on blue kill over there..
-
I'm just gonna say that I am flabbergasted that you are trying to link religion and the enviroment.
So you're going to totally discount the words of two fairly influencial political figures?
Yes the bible says we should protect the environment, but in reality we typically cherry pick what things we choose to follow, and for the doomsdayers in this one of the things that gets left out.
-
So you're going to totally discount the words of two fairly influencial political figures?
Being influential != Being right
-
Democrats have no brains, Republicans have no hearts, or so it goes.
Can this be related to the following quote by certain Russian politician?
Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.
:p
Anyway, I have to say that it's been a long time since I've seen GenDisc this busy with conversations, even though they are pretty controversial. :yes:
-
That's why we bother talking about it.
What you're saying is essentially "**** them", right?
No. Whatever gave you that idea </serious>
They are all privileges.
I have, basically, the right to have lived. The fact that I am discussing anything at this point demonstrates that. If you have not yet lived, there is nothing for it to apply to. Part 2: No matter what you say, do, or try to do to someone, they always have a choice. You can't take away that particular exercise in free will. You try to kill me, I can choose to either resist, or just go with it. You try to take my stuff, same. There is always a choice, even if not a particularly good one.
Tell me when exactly Christianity has been persecuted in the US.
:wtf: Where the hell did this come from?
I generally hear of prayers in schools being banned in general, not the just act of forcing others to pray, so you're pretty close to a blue on blue kill over there..
Yeah, they also actually banned moments of silence where people feel encouraged to pray, regardless of what the school is doing. It seems to have become kind of a "yeah, you can do this, but only where you and your friends can see it. Someone else could get offended."
-
I have, basically, the right to have lived. The fact that I am discussing anything at this point demonstrates that. If you have not yet lived, there is nothing for it to apply to. Part 2: No matter what you say, do, or try to do to someone, they always have a choice. You can't take away that particular exercise in free will. You try to kill me, I can choose to either resist, or just go with it. You try to take my stuff, same. There is always a choice, even if not a particularly good one.
I can remove BOTH of the rights you've just mentioned. Depending on your definition of when life exists, I can most certainly stop it before that happens.
As for choice, I can shoot you in the head (I won't). Your choice is gone.
I can drug you and tie you to a bed forever and force feed you through a tube. What choice would you have in that situation?
-
nb4determinism
-
the free healthcare...
Nothing is free.
Ok, the healthcare that doesn't cost an arm, a leg, and a kidney to get basic treatment.
Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that
I generally hear of prayers in schools being banned in general, not the just act of forcing others to pray, so you're pretty close to a blue on blue kill over there..
Ok, you completely twisted everything I said.
Read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale) And how do you mean, "just act"? Do you think people should be forced to pray in school? :doubt:
-
Kosh
Communism in those states ended up turning into a religion of its own. All of these states had huge personality cults, especially north korea. Rigid adherence to doctrine, blindly following the great leader's word to the letter, intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with said doctrine. All the hallmarks of a religious cult.
Ah, very good. And because you've got it partially right, I will reward you with a passage from The Book of Exodus, Chapter 20, Verses 3-5 from the Hebrew-English Tanakh: "3)You shall have no other gods besides Me. 4)You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. 5) You shall not bow down to them or serve them."
I could've used the Catholic Bible, but because it's translated from two or three languages prior to English, I'd rather just go straight to original source, thus why I used a Jewish Bible instead.
But, more to the point, that was the First Commandment, which basically states that worship of false gods or idolatry is prohibited. As you've pointed out, those communist states and Nazi Germany all began to follow blindly their leaders doing whatever they were told, regardless of whether it was right or wrong. This goes to such an extreme, that these persons can be treated as having a "messianic personality" (well, Hitler anyways) by their people (thus, a false god). A person can be interpreted as a deity such as a far eastern emperor, however, because he is human he is thus flawed, and thus, false in terms of being God.
However, it should be noted that lack of religion does not necessitate the absense of God. Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-). Even if the Judeo-Christian faith is shot to Hell, God still exists, because He transcends religion.
Lack of any sort of religion or cults has never happened in the history of the world until now. Look at Sweden, they are the least religious country in the world and yet they are the free-est, most satisfied, and one of the most prosperous in the world.
Sweden's native population, as well as Europe in general is dying off and being replaced by mass immigration from primarily Muslim countries, and the Muslims by and large are rejecting atheism and keeping with their own traditions and culture rather than adopting secular ways. Unified in their belief and faith, they adhere to what they believe are God's teachings and follow a more traditional morality that focuses on promotion of the family and keeping clear of perceived sins such as excessive materialism, promiscuity (I would not think of including polygamous marriage as promiscuity).
Atheism in Sweden and elsewhere doesn't really espouse any specific morals or ethics that I know of. There certainly are faiths such as secular humanism, but again, that places man as top dog in place of God, and man can justify anything he does or doesn't do for better or worse without being held to account. And as the current behavioural mindset focuses almost specifically on an individual's preference, values are subject to one's point of view. Some will decide that a traditional lifestyle is good, others will do what they feel like if it feels good, traditional morality be damned.
Through the sexual revolution, people rejected the discipline required by celibacy (which is generally taught by most major religions) and with birth control and abortion available, most people have turned something that was pretty much kept for procreation as opposed for recreation. After all, sex is enjoyable, is it not? However, what if she gets pregnant? I didn't intend to become a father, I just like participating in the act of creation because it feels good. Raising a child is just too much responsibility. And if I get married, I'll have to stay monogamous which may be something I'm not ready for, or I like having sex with this person, but don't wish to remain with her until one of us is in the ground.
The sad truth is that many native Europeans have adopted this mind-set to the point where simply put, they are not reproducing save, where a traditional faith is strong, such as Muslim Albania. If demography is indeed destiny, the Islamic faithful are going to be replacing the native Europeans. If the superiority of a culture is based off of accomplishments and longevity, Islam will have succeeded in the latter and will have time on its side to achieve the former.
nd the reason for this was because when it was written in the 19th century religion was still being used as a tool to keep exploited people in line.
"Exploited people" ? No offense but you certainly sound like a Marxist. Religion is still being used to keep people in line even in the 21st century if you take a look at the Third World. It's not like after the switch to the 20th century religion in the First and Second World stopped. The reason as I understand it, is that Marxism cannot co-exist with religion because absolute authority is to come from the state, not a faith that proclaims the existence of God who will hold those accountable for right or wrong. Therefore, Marxism must eliminate the belief of God and convince people to look for a god in the state, which is of course, false because the state is run by humans who are prone to mistake. In effect, the people may no longer be kept in check by a religion, but they will be kept in check by Big Brother. A police state is not something most Americans or Europeans would like to live in. Also, it should be noted that Marxism's state-enforced atheism mandate runs completely contradictory to the United States' Constitution's First Amendment. America's own rules prevent the denial of freedom of worship.
out if it is based on major misunderstandings and scare tactics?
I'm not entirely sure I follow.
If you're referring to someone deceiving, guilt tripping or coercing you into belief, than that's immoral. The conversion is false and thus is a great disservice to Him, you, and those who adhere to the faith because quite frankly, you don't know what you're getting into, and will have not arrived at that conclusion through honest means.
If I threaten someone with scary tales of getting their ass poked by some sadistic red-horned imp wielding a trident prancing around the lake of fire for unbelief, then I'm technically corrupting any potential conversion, because it'll have been done to avoid pain, as opposed to true and honest reasons.
As for major misunderstandings go, I have more or less begun to make it my personal practice to put religion and free thinking side-by-side in order to overcome things like mistranslations and so forth (I'm assuming this is what you mean). As I mentioned earlier, I have a Catholic Bible and a Jewish Bible. For the Old Testament I refer to the Jewish Bible simply because you're going from pure Hebrew to English, and thus are more likely to get a correct translation as opposed to the Catholic or King James Bible (which I have as well) since those went something like Hebrew/Aramaic > Greek/Latin > English (not counting translations to the modern forms of those languages). In general though, all Bibles to my knowledge have the same basic message.
And I could refute that. By removing god it allows us to find our own answers to how things work. God did it is a total cop-out. I don't see anything about quarks or leptons in the bible, do you? Besides, there are many parts of the bible that are not followed, such as the part about selling your daughter into slavery. The bible is supposed to be "the word of god" and therefore infallible, so that also makes it the "absolute truth"?
This is illogical. I could tell you that I modeled a Vorlon fighter without explaining how I did it in terms of workflow and tool sets, yet it wouldn't change the fact that I made it. What you are essentially asking for is a scientific answer to a scientific question. The Bible is not a science book. Likewise, should I seek an answer on moral values from a book on botany? Appropriate tools for appropriate questions. Having God does not somehow prevent a person from exploring how the world around them works. Look at Leonardo da Vinci. A man of faith, yet considerable artistic talent and a curiosity of the world around him, attempting new ideas. What you are most likely thinking of is intereference from clergies.
I don't recall seeing any passages in which God commands fathers to sell their daughters. There are many rules in regards to the treatment, purchace, and freeing of slaves, if that's what you're getting at. Things like if a man bethrothes a female slave to his son, she must be treated like a daughter, or if he himself marries her, and then marries another, he must still afford her food, clothes, conjugal rights, and so forth, or failure to do so will result in her freedom. You can look this up in the Book of Exodus. Chapter 21 goes into it all. I also think there are some parts of Leviticus that also go into this, but I don't remember off-hand. After that, I'm sorry, I've yet to finish the Book of Numbers. I'm trying to get through the second census of the Israelites, and it keeps listing nearly every head person and their pet dog who was descended from Jacob's 12 sons. I guess this is what happens when you have a wandering group of nomads numbering in the tens of thousands.
Not really. Things that hurt other people are wrong, full stop. Things that hurt yourself are things you shouldn't do, but it is your choice.
So, committing harm to another is wrong, no matter the circumstance, thus making it an absolute truth. It can also be argued that it may be at times necessary to harm another, suggesting an absolute truth, however, I think we can agree that 'right' and 'necessary' are different from each other.
As for doing things that hurt yourself that one shouldn't do (from the Book of Numbers, Chapter 15, Verse 31: "Because he has spurned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off- he bears his guilt."
The Catholic version reads: "Since he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken his commandment, he must be cut off. He has only himself to blame."
Understand that humans possess free will to do whatever they wish. However, different actions produce different results. If I brake a law and get caught, who should I be upset with? law enforcement, or myself? If I have free will and control over my actions and knowingly broke the law, then I only have myself to blame.
Based on the mythos in the bible god is no better. "Worship me OR ELSE", yeah, real mature.
Or else, what? In all honesty, it seems that you have more of a beef with the Abrahamic belief system, rather than God Himself. Also, God is not some personified deity such as the pagan gods of Greece and Rome, which are personifications of elemental forces and human nature. God isn't meant to be worshipped as an idol like humans did of Ra or Maalak. You Worship Him everyday by helping your neighbor, contributing to society, being the best person you can be. Yes, you'll make mistakes, but that's all humans. Only He Who Resides in the Most High is without sin.
Kara
But yet didn't give a toss about people who did die in accidents?
Furthermore if you're claiming that miracle saves are due to God then what causes freak accidents? God being a bastard and deciding to kill someone?
This seems more rooted in anger at God, as opposed to lack of belief.
A good reading with regards to "Why do bad things happen to good people?" can be found near the end of the Book of Genesis, Chapters 37, 39-50. This chronicles Joseph, son of Israel, being sold off into slavery by his brothers.
Blue Lion
Without government, I decide I would really enjoy eating you for lunch. Where is the right to life at that moment
Your stuff looks really pretty. No cops to stop me, looks like they're mine. What right to property??
Wow, you really took that out of context, didn't you? You mean, without government, you're really incapable of following any rules of morality? That's not good.....
Herra Tohtori
It's funny how the idea about helping other people seems to originate from (and be preferred by) godless atheist scum whereas the ideal society of good Christians [generalization warning] seems to be a model where the state only has the most rudimentary functions (safety, jurisdiction) and everyone basically has to get along on their own or perish.
Just an observation of mine. Don't be flamed (I might've worded it a bit provocatively) but think about it for a while. What kind of a society would Jesus want to live in, a capitalist one or one with some socialist features?
You're going to have to explain why most charitable donations come from the Bible Belt as opposed to more secular states.
The difference between the Christian and the Socialist is that the Christian gives what he has of his own pocket; the Socialist takes from someone elses, drops a chunk of change into their own, and hands over what's left.
-Joshua-
Christ would NOT support socialism because it's the forced redistribution of another's wealth. He would want people to voluntarily give to the poor rather than some state dictate the process because it is a corruption. A wealthier person is doing it because he's forced to, not because he WANTS to.
-
That why I can't understand how some so called Christians can give support, in the form of they're vote, to leaders who openly and sometimes proudly denegrate they're faith and sometimes threaten it
ARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH THE EVIL LIBERALS ARE OUT TO GET CHRISTIANITY
Tell me when exactly Christianity has been persecuted in the US. ...oh, it hasn't? That's what I thought!
Also the courts telling Christians they can't force their religion on others in public places (i.e. school prayer) isn't persecution so don't even try that
Apparently, you haven't heard of the new DHS report on supposed "right-wing" extremists from Janet Napolitano says need to be monitored. It targets people who have pro-life, traditional marriage views, or conservative views in general as being suspected "domestic terrorists". Also, this report includes returning military personnel, people who want border stability, anti-amnesty for illegal aliens, don't like losing their jobs overseas, etc.
-
Wait, you're telling me a recession would last longer, but government intervention to help it is bad?
Considering government interference would exacerbate the problem further, yeah, any major intervention would be bad
Did you not understand why the Recession of 1921-23 was resolved in a year? There was minimal government intervention
involved.
If you REALLY want to know what I think, is that the CEOs should be investigated for any illegal wrong-doing and if found guilty, have their assets seized and distributed equally among the employees who will lose their jobs when AIG goes under.
AIG going under will leave a vacuum needed to be filled, and thus some bright entrepreneurial Americans will come in and have their shot at replacing the former financial giant.
The reason I believe that the recession would take longer is because of our lack of a manufacturing base, thus taking longer for those jobs to be created (it is quite possible that I could be mistaken on this, and further research may be required).
Secondly, the stimulus package won't do what you say it does. The fact that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are now on the budgets (they weren't before) and health care is steadily increasing is what ruins the deficit.
As government bails out public companies and becomes the biggest "shareholder", it in effect has nationalized them. If the companies fail to do what the government dictates, the money goes out the door. Not everyone wants Big Brother micro-managing every little decision that's to be made. Thus, the private sector is systematically converted over to the public sector.
This is nothing more than a classical socialist power grab.
You're misunderstanding the stimulus package with the overall budget projections. Yes, the budget will take a big hit in the next year or 3 due to this stimulus, but it is not what is causing this spiraling deficit.
Out of control spending is causing the deficit. I mean, how can a person be pissed at W. for pissing away all that loot but look at Barry as the Be All, End All when his policies will TRIPLE the deficit. This will NOT get us out of recession, but will put us in depression.
Firstly, the tea parties are conservative funded protests against tax changes that will LOWER taxes for 95% of the people (so all those people are protesting lower taxes) AND they won't even come into effect until next year. Right now, the taxes they are protesting are Bushes tax rates from last year.
Did you even attend a tea party? Lots of people are pissed off at BOTH Republicans and Democrats. While it is indeed true that Fox News and more conservative media outlets are more supportive of the tea parties, it is NOT limited to those who hold to be conservative.
You really need to read the report released by the Congressional Budget Office. It is projected that while the stimulus package may benefit the people or a year or two, it will ultimately come crashing down the moment Obama institutes new taxes to pay for all of this. Did you not pay attention to him saying he would hold off on taxes for two years? That means, come the end of 2010-2011, we'll be seeing massive tax increases which will decrease money exchanging hands. Even if you tax the "wealthiest 1%" only, it's not going to work. You are going to see an increase in income taxes across the board for everyone who pays them.
Also, it needs to be noted that the bottom bracket of the "wealthiest 1%" is hovering a little over an income gross of $200,000.
Most people get this ludicrous idea that the wealthiest 1% are composed only of earners of seven-figure salaries.
This tea party thing is right wing pretend nonsense. Nothing more.
Poppycock. CNN and MSNBC have been hammering the tea parties because it is perceived to be solely aimed at Barack Obama, whom they cheerleaded into the White House. Perhaps we should expose Communist News Network's bias, hmm?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q).
No, no Soviet-style propaganda here. For news one can trust, read Pravda.
Have you ever considered that most people voted for Barry because W. screwed up so bad, that when Barry offered "hope and change", people believed that Obama would not continue disastrous policies of fiscal irresponsibility and not piss away the blood and treasure for another 4-8 years? And then he comes in and proposes that we spend even more recklessly claiming that will get us out of the crunch and keeps up with bailouts, despite that having not worked at the end of W's term.
People are pissed because they've been had. All that "hope" and "change" has turned out to be a bunch of malarchy. What, spending into oblivion is bad only when there's a Republican president, but it's okay now, because it's a Democrat? Do NOT be an unthinking drone of either party that buys into all the crap. This isn't "Good Republicans" and "Evil Democrats" or vice versa.
The rub is the systems you say should fail are vital systems to large swaths of the economy, including credit and funding. These failures would irrevocably harm lots of people. The auto industry for example, a lot of people are tied into that system. If it goes, you can't slap a new owner on it. It doesn't work that way.
Ah, here's the problem. GM, after having received a bailout, invested $1 Billion overseas for manufacturing operations in Brazil. This does NOT save or create new American jobs. And I say this as a person who initially supported the Auto-industry bailout because I believe that it IS a vital industry to the U.S. economy. The difference with the financial industry is that it's much easier to recover than say, the manufacturing industries, due to all the regulations, prep work, machine and parts costs, etc.
People are going to be harmed regardless. It comes down to this: How long do you want the hurt go on for? When do you want it to happen? Now, or down the road? It's unavoidable. Preferrably, I would rather get it over with now, rather then prolong the inevitable.
When the free market and "the good of the people" butt heads, guess who wins? It's not free market.
West Germany after WWII BEGS to differ. Only after the forces of the free market were unleashed did that country begin to prosper.
I'm no fan of Dodd or Frank (come on, voted out of office next time!) but I understand vital parts of the economy are just that: vital. I fully endorse not putting it in the hands of people who put it in that place.
Finally, we're getting somewhere. This is partially what I was getting at with the whole "wolf and sheep" analogy. Apologies for not having just come out with it in the first place.
No, I am perfectly upset about lack of regulation on things in the financial market and housing market. However these businesses screwed up so bad they needed great ol big checks from the government. I want better government regulation on things in the market like credit default swaps and credit ratings (my god, the credit rating fiasco). This implies I don't hold them in the highest regard now.
I'm not sure so much about lack of regulation, so much as rewarding bad behaviour. I do have some ideas on how the private sector can be better self-regulated though; well, at least companies who have stock-holders involved, based on a one man - one vote system in which stock-holders may punish or reward CEOs as they see fit regardless of how much of the company an individual stock-holder owns. The company didn't too well this quarter, but the CEOs want bonuses? Too bad, the person in charge should be held accountable for their decisions. The company did well next quarter, well, let's see how much of a reward the stockholders agree upon for services rendered. What? You've consistently done poorly and are running your company right into the ground, yet think you deserve a pat on the back? You're FIRED. Now get the hell out and move over for someone else. I WOULD be for Government imposed legislation of that sort. It gives the stock-holder more direct control over what's going on.
I am not willing to give a pass to CEOs because "it's the nature of the beast". It's a recession, these markets and industries are faltering, they've needed giant government handouts, I don't think increased government pressure and control on these during this time is such a bad thing.
Understand I didn't say not to investigate any wrongdoing, I think I've made that clear. However, as I don't currently trust the elected officials to do their job (considering how they've performed for the past 8+ years), I'm concerned about corruption among those who lead the investigation, especially when you take a look as to who received financial campaign contributions.
I'm not getting the logic here. CEOs are better cause they're a "pure" bad as opposed to Congress who is worse cause they pretend to like us or something so.... then I get kinda lost.
Third time's the charm? CEOs aren't so much better because they're a "pure" bad, as that Congress has been bought and paid for (or at least a significant portion of them) via contributions. In order for Congress to effectively do its job, you must remove the corruption first, or at the very least, put it to more manageable levels (as there will always be corruption, it's just the variances of degree), then go after the "proper" bad guys.
If the politicians can't do their jobs due to corruption, then they need to be thrown out. And if the government refuses to do that, perhaps its fire sticks and pitchforks time, because they are NOT serving the people.
I want ALL parties to be penalized, not just the CEOs.
I think that this is something we can find common ground on.
If I had been had, we wouldn't even be discussing the removal of their bonuses. The theory falls apart because the results are coming in.
And once again, the CBO predicted this would have some short-term positives, but in the long run, will result in something far worse. Let's see what happens near the mid-term elections and presidential re-election.
-
The difference between the Christian and the Socialist is that the Christian gives what he has of his own pocket; the Socialist takes from someone elses, drops a chunk of change into their own, and hands over what's left.
Surely you jest?
Fact: Christian charitable donations are politically motivated. Christians don't tend to donate towards better health care for all, or increased access to sexual health clinics, or better sex education programs. Christians buy political policy through donation. Blunt, but unfortunately true. Actually, it goes for any religious group - their donation patterns are heavily biased in favor of moralistic patterns. Frankly, I'd prefer they donated less and decreased their corresponding political influence.
Socialism is about everyone chipping in for the benefit of all. Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in. Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.
You seem to have socialism confused with Leninist-Stalinist Communism (which is a far cry from actual Communism as outlined by Marx which was never put into practice on a national scale anywhere).
-
Good God, maje, that was some triple post.
(I know, I know, off topic, but...it seemed worthy of comment.)
-
The difference between the Christian and the Socialist is that the Christian gives what he has of his own pocket; the Socialist takes from someone elses, drops a chunk of change into their own, and hands over what's left.
Surely you jest?
Fact: Christian charitable donations are politically motivated. Christians don't tend to donate towards better health care for all, or increased access to sexual health clinics, or better sex education programs. Christians buy political policy through donation. Blunt, but unfortunately true. Actually, it goes for any religious group - their donation patterns are heavily biased in favor of moralistic patterns. Frankly, I'd prefer they donated less and decreased their corresponding political influence.
Socialism is about everyone chipping in for the benefit of all. Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in. Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.
You seem to have socialism confused with Leninist-Stalinist Communism (which is a far cry from actual Communism as outlined by Marx which was never put into practice on a national scale anywhere).
I have a question about Sweden and Norway then. What is the general level of wealth there? Is it all middle class? How do they fund this "Socialist Paradise"?
And yes, Christians do donate to causes they believe in, in great numbers and great amounts. The same as every other social group. If you wanna talk about a group that has undue political influence I suggest you look at the gay and lesbian population, they consist of less that 2% of the population but they're one of the most influential left wing organizations.
-
Apparently, you haven't heard of the new DHS report on supposed "right-wing" extremists from Janet Napolitano says need to be monitored. It targets people who have pro-life, traditional marriage views, or conservative views in general as being suspected "domestic terrorists". Also, this report includes returning military personnel, people who want border stability, anti-amnesty for illegal aliens, don't like losing their jobs overseas, etc.
And you're calling that persecution...why? :wtf:
So, we shouldn't be on the lookout for people who bomb abortion clinics and federal buildings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)? Given that nearly every single instance of domestic terror in the last fifty years has come from Christian or extreme-right groups, we have every right to be as suspect of them as we do of extremist Islam.
-
Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-).
No.
Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God. It's a lack of belief in God. Those are two fundamentally different things.
The majority of atheists believe that there is no more proof of the existence of God than there is for the existence of Rama, Buddha or Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a result of this lack of proof there is no sensible way to pick a religion and the only possible course of action is to not pick any of them until more evidence is found.
Even very militant Atheists will say "God probably doesn't exist." Hardly the kind of comment you'd expect from a fundamentalist of an anti-religion based on the non-existence of God. How many fundamentalists do you know who ever say "God most probably exists"?
Believing that there is no God is missing the point just as much as believing that there is.
-
Or else, what?
Or else you rot in hell forever and ever. You could be the best person and the world and according to the bible still go to hell just for not believing.
ou Worship Him everyday by helping your neighbor, contributing to society, being the best person you can be
No I don't, I contribute to making the world and where I live a better place. That's humanism, nothing more.
So, committing harm to another is wrong, no matter the circumstance, thus making it an absolute truth.
Yeah. If everyone adhered to such a belief, there would be no need to defend myself since no one would hurt me.
This is illogical.
No it isn't. What gets followed and what doesn't is cherry picked.
There are many rules in regards to the treatment, purchace, and freeing of slaves, if that's what you're getting at.
Which is basically saying that slavery is ok. In the US for a very long time the enslavement of blacks was justified by the bible.
Here's a long list of crap the bible says to justify slavery. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm) Yet, we don't follow these now. So if it is the "Absolute Truth", how come these passages are suddenly ignored?
"Exploited people" ? No offense but you certainly sound like a Marxist.
So 19th century robber barons in making workers (including little children) work in dangerous, unsanitary, unhealthy work places for 12+ hours a day 6 days a week for pennies a day were really making a workers paradise? I'm not a Marxist, but I do have a fairly good understanding of how crappy life was for almost everyone in the 19th century when the communist manifesto was written.
Religion is still being used to keep people in line even in the 21st century if you take a look at the Third World.
Yeah, and a lot of those countries are such great places to live in. The fact is that a great many of these countries are still stuck in the 19th century, their social development is a full century behind ours.
There certainly are faiths such as secular humanism, but again, that places man as top dog in place of God, and man can justify anything he does or doesn't do for better or worse without being held to account.
It's not really a religion it is an idea that we should make the world better. We can't justify anything we do or don't do without being held into account, we have society to hold us all accountable.
-
Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in. Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.
No! They're not socialist countries, more like moderately capitalistic. The level of democracy in Sweden/Norway takes care of that (100% of anything isn't possible).
-
Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in. Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.
No! They're not socialist countries, more like moderately capitalistic. The level of democracy in Sweden/Norway takes care of that (100% of anything isn't possible).
No, they are socialist. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't use the stupid definitions for words like socialist and liberal that America insists on using.
-
I have a question about Sweden and Norway then. What is the general level of wealth there? Is it all middle class? How do they fund this "Socialist Paradise"?
Sweden is social-democratic though. It has extremely high tax revenue and is very rich; I think the GDP(PPP) per capita is around 10th rich in the world or so. I think the standard of life is much higher than in USA, at least populace is much more educated and rich, blaa blaa blaa.
This isn't any kind of secret knowledge; Sweden is a very well known example when it comes to enacting socialist policies in capitalistic societies. They have done it pretty much always.
And yes, Christians do donate to causes they believe in, in great numbers and great amounts. The same as every other social group. If you wanna talk about a group that has undue political influence I suggest you look at the gay and lesbian population, they consist of less that 2% of the population but they're one of the most influential left wing organizations.
Sexual orientation = left wing organization
we have a winner here
-
No, they are socialist. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't use the stupid definitions for words like socialist and liberal that America insists on using.
Well, these definitions are debatable.
For many years, no single political party in Sweden has managed to gain more than 50% of the votes, so political parties with similar agendas cooperate on several issues, forming coalition governments. In general, two major blocks exist in parliament, the left and the right, or socialists and non-socialists (conservatives/liberals). Currently the liberal/right coalition consisting of the Centre Party, the Liberal People's Party, the Christian Democrats and the Moderate Party governs Sweden. In the previous three electoral periods the socialists formed the government but lost the election in 2006.
Current party representation in the Riksdag Parties¹
Leaders¹ Seats² Votes³
Social Democratic Party Mona Sahlin 130 34.99%
Moderate Party Fredrik Reinfeldt 97 26.23%
Centre Party Maud Olofsson 29 7.88%
Liberal People's Party Jan Björklund 28 7.54%
Christian Democrats Göran Hägglund 24 6.59%
Left Party Lars Ohly 22 5.85%
Green Party Maria Wetterstrand
and Peter Eriksson 19 5.24%
-
No, they are socialist. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't use the stupid definitions for words like socialist and liberal that America insists on using.
Well, these definitions are debatable.
For many years, no single political party in Sweden has managed to gain more than 50% of the votes, so political parties with similar agendas cooperate on several issues, forming coalition governments. In general, two major blocks exist in parliament, the left and the right, or socialists and non-socialists (conservatives/liberals). Currently the liberal/right coalition consisting of the Centre Party, the Liberal People's Party, the Christian Democrats and the Moderate Party governs Sweden. In the previous three electoral periods the socialists formed the government but lost the election in 2006.
Current party representation in the Riksdag Parties¹
Leaders¹ Seats² Votes³
Social Democratic Party Mona Sahlin 130 34.99%
Moderate Party Fredrik Reinfeldt 97 26.23%
Centre Party Maud Olofsson 29 7.88%
Liberal People's Party Jan Björklund 28 7.54%
Christian Democrats Göran Hägglund 24 6.59%
Left Party Lars Ohly 22 5.85%
Green Party Maria Wetterstrand
and Peter Eriksson 19 5.24%
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science. It is artificially polarized into left/right dichotomy by it's large number of American contributors.
Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not see such an overwhelming polarization of left/right political movements.
-
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science. It is artificially polarized into left/right dichotomy by it's large number of American contributors.
Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not see such an overwhelming polarization of left/right political movements.
The Swedes disagree with that, and I must remind you that in these cases the article itself is most probably written by Swedes or at least Nordic people. Castor's link does not seem odd at all.
I must question your assumption of global polarization (and I also want to know where you're from) - go tell the Nepalese that they are not polarized in left-right axis. The two-party system of America seems weird, but as soon as you start to observe the rhetorics and national dialogue in almost any parliamentary democracy you will notice that the socialist-capitalist dichotomy does exist, and is often even stronger than in USA. The idea of partisanship or nonpartisanship is not American but historical, and complex dynamics and even violence between two parties is the norm in all the world! It is not uncommon that these things cause civil wars even today; if that is not polarization I do not know what is. The rhetorics differ around the world - sometimes the ideologue or parties are more important than individuals. But rest assured: the American model is actually less fanatic about ideology (partly by design) than many other nations.
-
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science. It is artificially polarized into left/right dichotomy by it's large number of American contributors.
Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not see such an overwhelming polarization of left/right political movements.
The Swedes disagree with that, and I must remind you that in these cases the article itself is most probably written by Swedes or at least Nordic people. Castor's link does not seem odd at all.
I must question your assumption of global polarization (and I also want to know where you're from) - go tell the Nepalese that they are not polarized in left-right axis. The two-party system of America seems weird, but as soon as you start to observe the rhetorics and national dialogue in almost any parliamentary democracy you will notice that the socialist-capitalist dichotomy does exist, and is often even stronger than in USA. The idea of partisanship or nonpartisanship is not American but historical, and complex dynamics and even violence between two parties is the norm in all the world! It is not uncommon that these things cause civil wars even today; if that is not polarization I do not know what is. The rhetorics differ around the world - sometimes the ideologue or parties are more important than individuals. But rest assured: the American model is actually less fanatic about ideology (partly by design) than many other nations.
:wtf: :eek2: :nervous:
Did Janos just say something nice about the USA?!?!??!??
-
This is your problem. You think that anyone who holds a viewpoint opposed to yours hates America and all it stands for.
It apparently hasn't occurred to you that liberals can be patriots who believe conservatives oppose all that America stands for.
I don't particularly favor one side of the political spectrum. What I care about is people's ability to understand and empathize with other viewpoints, instead of just demonizing them.
-
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science.
Yes, thats why I was careful to pick that part - a simple observation. You see no opinions there.
-
Well the opinion is who is a socialist party and who isn't. An American writing that article would probably have a completely different point of view from a Swede.
Which was kinda my point.
-
Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-).
No.
Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God. It's a lack of belief in God. Those are two fundamentally different things.
The majority of atheists believe that there is no more proof of the existence of God than there is for the existence of Rama, Buddha or Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a result of this lack of proof there is no sensible way to pick a religion and the only possible course of action is to not pick any of them until more evidence is found.
Even very militant Atheists will say "God probably doesn't exist." Hardly the kind of comment you'd expect from a fundamentalist of an anti-religion based on the non-existence of God. How many fundamentalists do you know who ever say "God most probably exists"?
Believing that there is no God is missing the point just as much as believing that there is.
Then what differentiates agnostics from people that believe there is no god, if they're all atheists?
-
Simply this:
When presented with the concept of God n Atheist says there is no god, an agnostic says "Prove it!".
-
Simply this:
When presented with the concept of God n Atheist says there is no god, an agnostic says "Prove it!".
there is no difference, agnostics are just hesitant to be labeled atheist in a society that largely demonizes atheists. It's understandable really. I'm sure there were plenty of black people who would have preferred to pretend they were white back in the '50s
-
Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-).
No.
Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God. It's a lack of belief in God. Those are two fundamentally different things.
The majority of atheists believe that there is no more proof of the existence of God than there is for the existence of Rama, Buddha or Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a result of this lack of proof there is no sensible way to pick a religion and the only possible course of action is to not pick any of them until more evidence is found.
Even very militant Atheists will say "God probably doesn't exist." Hardly the kind of comment you'd expect from a fundamentalist of an anti-religion based on the non-existence of God. How many fundamentalists do you know who ever say "God most probably exists"?
Believing that there is no God is missing the point just as much as believing that there is.
Then what differentiates agnostics from people that believe there is no god, if they're all atheists?
Agnostism is a subset of weak atheism.
-
It depends on your definition Ghostavo. I prefer the one I explain below.
Simply this:
When presented with the concept of God n Atheist says there is no god, an agnostic says "Prove it!".
Wrong again. You seriously prove your ignorance by claiming it.
The atheist says "Prove it"
The agnostic says "Yes, but you're wrong to be certain about who or what he is"
The difference is that an agnostic does have faith that there is a purpose to the universe and/or a higher being or beings. An atheist says that there is no proof so far of either.
-
I was always taught that atheists do not believe in a god, agnostics believe that we cannot know if there is a god or not, and ignostics think people assume too much about god.
Huh.
-
I was always taught that atheists do not believe in a god, agnostics believe that we cannot know if there is a god or not, and ignostics think people assume too much about god.
Huh.
Same. I always thought there was strong atheism (there is no God), weak atheism (there's no proof of God's existence, therefore God is an unwarranted assumption) and agnosticism (there might or might not be God or gods, but by definition it is impossible for us to get any knowledge of such things so why bother having a defined opinion).
-
You'll probably find as many definitions as people really.
-
Yep. There are a lot of different ways to distinguish it. But bear in mind that strong atheists when saying "There is no God" are mostly saying "On the balance of all evidence and probability, there is no God"
You'll be very hard pressed to find an Atheist who says that "There is no God and there is absolutely no chance I'm wrong on this."
-
Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science. It is artificially polarized into left/right dichotomy by it's large number of American contributors.
Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not see such an overwhelming polarization of left/right political movements.
The Swedes disagree with that, and I must remind you that in these cases the article itself is most probably written by Swedes or at least Nordic people. Castor's link does not seem odd at all.
I must question your assumption of global polarization (and I also want to know where you're from) - go tell the Nepalese that they are not polarized in left-right axis. The two-party system of America seems weird, but as soon as you start to observe the rhetorics and national dialogue in almost any parliamentary democracy you will notice that the socialist-capitalist dichotomy does exist, and is often even stronger than in USA. The idea of partisanship or nonpartisanship is not American but historical, and complex dynamics and even violence between two parties is the norm in all the world! It is not uncommon that these things cause civil wars even today; if that is not polarization I do not know what is. The rhetorics differ around the world - sometimes the ideologue or parties are more important than individuals. But rest assured: the American model is actually less fanatic about ideology (partly by design) than many other nations.
I'm from Canada (as my profile indicates, IIRC).
Any student of political science should be able to tell you that political ideology falls on a sphere. At the extreme North, we have Authoritarianism. At the south, Libertarianism. West, Communism. East, Fascism. Any political ideology can be plotted as measures of degrees between the four "poles." Go far enough into Communism and you circle right back to Facism. Ditto for the North-South Axis.
Most democratic countries have political parties that fall to varying degrees in all four quadrants and their citizenry typically votes along those lines. This is most evident in European democracies that function largely based upon coalition governments. Britain, Canada, and the States differ slightly in that their voter bases pay much more attention to the E-W axis than the N-S. Authoritarian versus libertarian policies are connotatively understood rather than outright expressed. Major parties also tend to focus on the E-W orientation as opposed to N-S, which, to choose an example that everyone should be familiar with, is why Ron Paul and John McCain ended up in the same party.
Political polarization along two axes is an artificial viewpoint which is common to countries like the US, Canada, and Britain, but it doesn't reflect the actual state of politics. While socialist/capitalist ideology is the most commonly examined altercation point, it isn't the only one, and it isn't even necessarily the most relevant in some countries. Americans, for example, think that the difference between Bush and Obama is primarily socialist/capitalist. It isn't. There is a much bigger delineation between the two in terms of authoritarian versus libertarian ideals. In terms of world socialism versus capitalism, Obama and Bush are barely discernible on the scale.
Take even Liberator's thread about unwed mothers. That isn't a left/right debate, it's an authoritarian/libertarian. But, because Republican ideals are typically associated with the political right rather than the political North (Authoritarian), people talk about the left wing when it really is irrelevant.
Thus my objection to Wikipedia sourcing. It fails to account for half the political spectrum of ideologies and greatly oversimplifies the actual state of political alignment.
-
Yep. There are a lot of different ways to distinguish it. But bear in mind that strong atheists when saying "There is no God" are mostly saying "On the balance of all evidence and probability, there is no God"
You'll be very hard pressed to find an Atheist who says that "There is no God and there is absolutely no chance I'm wrong on this."
Dawkins :lol:
EDIT: and after reading the "pudding" thread, Turambar.
-
Wait wait wait. How does Libertarianism circle around to Authoritarianism?
-
EDIT: and after reading the "pudding" thread, Turambar.
Hey, show me some proof and i'll gladly consider the existence of some supernatural being.
I'll just wait over here.
-
Wait wait wait. How does Libertarianism circle around to Authoritarianism?
I was going to ask the same thing. Maybe instead of a sphere, he meant a cylinder. Or maybe you become so fervent about preventing people from infringing upon other people's rights that you forget that you're actually infringing upon their rights more than they would infringe upon other people's rights.
...
:nervous:
-
Wait wait wait. How does Libertarianism circle around to Authoritarianism?
I was going to ask the same thing. Maybe instead of a sphere, he meant a cylinder. Or maybe you become so fervent about preventing people from infringing upon other people's rights that you forget that you're actually infringing upon their rights more than they would infringe upon other people's rights.
...
:nervous:
Extreme authoritarianism and extreme libertarianism become the same thing - extreme authoritarians dictate the best interests of the populace (whether it actually is or not), prescribing particular behaviours as a requirement for everyone; extreme libertarianism dictates that absolute personal freedom be allowed because it's in the best interests of the populace (whether it actually is or not), prescribing particular behaviours as a requirement for everyone.
Become enough of a libertarian and eventually you'll be telling people they HAVE to act in certain ways because they have the freedom to do so. Similarly, authoritarians will tell people they have the freedom to act in all ways, but the best are particular ones.
EDIT: I think I forgot a conceptual point. If your sphere looks like this:
---N---
W-0-E
---S---
0 is the center. To go from one pole to another, regardless of which side of the sphere you travel on, you have to pass through the 0 point. 0 being absolute political centrism on the front side and absolute political extremism (an artificial construct) on the back.
-
Hey, show me some proof and i'll gladly consider the existence of some supernatural being.
I'll just wait over here.
Karajorma leading Diaspora, which refers to a deeply religious tv show. God works in mysterious ways. :pimp:
-
You know he doesn't like to be called like that.
-
Yep. There are a lot of different ways to distinguish it. But bear in mind that strong atheists when saying "There is no God" are mostly saying "On the balance of all evidence and probability, there is no God"
You'll be very hard pressed to find an Atheist who says that "There is no God and there is absolutely no chance I'm wrong on this."
Dawkins :lol:
EDIT: and after reading the "pudding" thread, Turambar.
Actually he has never said "god certainly does not exist".
I was always taught that atheists do not believe in a god, agnostics believe that we cannot know if there is a god or not, and ignostics think people assume too much about god.
Huh.
Who taught you that?
-
Become enough of a libertarian and eventually you'll be telling people they HAVE to act in certain ways because they have the freedom to do so.
eh... no.
if you want to make the argument that a libertarian philosophy is unfair or not in the best interest of the largest number of people fine, but you are completely ignorant if you think that sequence of characters you just typed constituted a thought.
-
.
-
who says there's a purpose?
(that's not to say there's no purpose to lives at all, that's up to each individual. you can make your own purpose, do without and just live, or you can borrow one from a religion)
-
what is this god of which you speak?
-
.
-
umm... wut...
ok, if you want someone to prove or dis prove something you need to give them, at the least a half decent definition of what you are talking about, that was just a paragraph of physibable.
more specificly if you want someone to prove or disprove something you need to define some points on which they can test. if you don't have that then you don't have much of anything.
-
/
-
disprove phlerit
-
the point remains that the invisible pink unicorn in my garage, the flying spaghetti monster, an unspecified teapot in orbit, and god all have the same amount of evidence.
-
/
-
Karajorma leading Diaspora, which refers to a deeply religious tv show. God works in mysterious ways. :pimp:
Is that really the best you can do? That's pretty pathetic. If I was making a mod about Father Christmas that wouldn't mean he was real either. :p
-
Yep. There are a lot of different ways to distinguish it. But bear in mind that strong atheists when saying "There is no God" are mostly saying "On the balance of all evidence and probability, there is no God"
You'll be very hard pressed to find an Atheist who says that "There is no God and there is absolutely no chance I'm wrong on this."
Dawkins :lol:
Wrong. Dawkins has frequently said that he could be wrong about religion. Simply that the chances of it are pretty small.
-
difference between string theory and god is with one of them if I have a big enough particle accelerator I can check to see if I'm right.
-
An unnamed god. God could take many names. I would think he would be called an "it" and not a "he" or "she" since male and female is only necessary for biology. Maybe an extremely powerful all knowing conscious energy and maybe the source of space/time foam in which universes and subatomic particles at the quantum level seem to come into and out of existence from nothing. Maybe the universe is its mind. Who knows? It is said the millennium simulation (largest size scale in the universe) looks like a collection of braincells.
I would only disagree with this because of Genesis 1:26:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
According to this, written by someone who, if we take it literally, knew God directly. Or at least the Command he gave to bring us into being.
-
Why would God have a penis like me? :confused: Or lungs and a stomach? Or nipples. Does God have nipples?
-
But not all of us look alike.
-
Or maybe the Bible has nothing to do with God, and was fabricated by man.
Always a possibility.
-
Why would God have a penis like me?
Just in case a cute Lady-God comes by?
Or nipples. Does God have nipples?
To kill some time, just in case a cute Lady-God doesn't come by?
Blaspheming is fun.
-
Or maybe the Bible has nothing to do with God, and was fabricated by man.
Always a possibility.
It was a perfect example of design by committee.
-
You know he doesn't like to be called like that.
He obviously doesn't. :eek2:
Is that really the best you can do? That's pretty pathetic. If I was making a mod about Father Christmas that wouldn't mean he was real either. :p
I swear to God, i'll never ever ever make jokes again (in english). :(
-
Nah, it's just that you didn't pick anything particularly amazing. I might be willing to concede that Derek Smart making money on all his games had miraculous connotations. :p
-
Or he sold his sou... No no!
*runs*
-
/
-
I thought about that but for one, the bible was written by man, and for two, "created in his own image" can be interpreted in different ways and might mean "what God's imagination came up with" like if I made a computer in my own image, it could mean how I wanted to create it, and not "modeled after how God looks", and even if man is supposed to be modeled after how God looks, it doesn't mean God is a "he" since likeness doesn't mean created exactly how God looks. Likeness means similar, not exact.
Copy pasted from:
http://www.dreadgazebo.com/gunporn/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/svdb_smaller.jpg
Which says that's NIV translation so it should be fairly acurate to the original greek/hebrew/source.
If you are the proponent of the theory that God is actually an XT race who came here and engineered us from existing life than that could mean they made us look like them. Remember, 2012 is when They(the race that built/showed how to build megalithic architecture) come back.
-
How did we get that date again?
-
Yep. There are a lot of different ways to distinguish it. But bear in mind that strong atheists when saying "There is no God" are mostly saying "On the balance of all evidence and probability, there is no God"
And it's still very wrong.
If it's so easy to see and so more probable that God doesn't exist, then there wouldn't be nearly enough believers...especially among men of science.
-
Yep. There are a lot of different ways to distinguish it. But bear in mind that strong atheists when saying "There is no God" are mostly saying "On the balance of all evidence and probability, there is no God"
And it's still very wrong.
If it's so easy to see and so more probable that God doesn't exist, then there wouldn't be nearly enough believers...especially among men of science.
I must have missed the massive amounts of proof lying around. Also the number of non believers is growing, not shrinking.
-
How did we get that date again?
It's the calculated end of the current age of the Mayan calender. Only it's not like a regular calender, it just stops and there's not another one to replace it. Most people of this persuasion take that to mean that they saw something happening on that day/month/year that would make calculating another calender irrelevant, so end of the world or a change in the way the world deals with linear time. Hell I don't know, maybe that's the day that the LHC explodes and splits the world into two completely separate copies of each other on opposite sides of the sun in perfect tidal balance.
-
No offence to the Mayans, but what would they know about the end of the universe, or even the end of the world?
The 2012 prophecies make me laugh, it's like saying that your car will explode when the mileometer clocks over from 99999 to 00000.
-
If it's so easy to see and so more probable that God doesn't exist, then there wouldn't be nearly enough believers...especially among men of science.
And if it was so easy to see God exists there wouldn't be any atheists.
I didn't say it was easy anyway. It takes a great deal of effort to be an atheist (unless you simply pay lip service and haven't actually thought about the idea any). To be an atheist requires making an effort to understand why there doesn't need to be an meaning to the universe. That's pretty hard cause humans have always tended to assign meaning to things, even when there wasn't one.
-
No offence to the Mayans, but what would they know about the end of the universe, or even the end of the world?
The 2012 prophecies make me laugh, it's like saying that your car will explode when the mileometer clocks over from 99999 to 00000.
My personal theory about that is that the Mayan priests set that date as a cutoff point simply because it was far enough away so they wouldn't have to deal with it, yet close enough to hang it over peoples' heads like a sword of Damocles.
-
If it's so easy to see and so more probable that God doesn't exist, then there wouldn't be nearly enough believers...especially among men of science.
And if it was so easy to see God exists there wouldn't be any atheists.
I didn't say it was easy anyway. It takes a great deal of effort to be an atheist (unless you simply pay lip service and haven't actually thought about the idea any).
Most Atheists are really agnostics anyway, it's not that they don't believe in any forces beyond our understanding, simply that the organised forms of religion are an attempt to claim that these people understand God and His motives.
Kind of funny how that changes though, isn't it? One minute God moves in mysterious ways, the next the only true path people can take is the one pointed out by someone who has a hotline to God. Cake and Eat it situation.
No offence to the Mayans, but what would they know about the end of the universe, or even the end of the world?
The 2012 prophecies make me laugh, it's like saying that your car will explode when the mileometer clocks over from 99999 to 00000.
My personal theory about that is that the Mayan priests set that date as a cutoff point simply because it was far enough away so they wouldn't have to deal with it, yet close enough to hang it over peoples' heads like a sword of Damocles.
Exactly, it's kind of like saying that the world will end in the year 1x10*26 because we've run out of Roman Numerals. It's not only silly, it's actually quite arrogant considering we've relegated their entire pantheon to fiction etc, to pull out one tiny aspect of a society and claim that this one aspect of a civilisation is correct, because it's convenient to Doomsayers for it to be so.
Edit: I mean, seriously, these people were into Sacrifice in a big way, even to the point of mutilating their genitalia to honour their Gods, funny how we keep the Doomsday prophecies, but don't re-adopt the idea of building pyramids with channels specially designed to carry blood down from the sacrifices at the top of it...
-
Only it's not like a regular calender, it just stops and there's not another one to replace it.
except not really. 12/21/2012 marks the end of a long count, it's happened 12 other times in the calendar, and the next two times it's going to happen is 3/26/2407, and 6/28/2801. there is nothing to debate here, the statement is simply not factual. that's all there is to it, it's just basicaly a quazi-melinial newyear
-
I'm going to start insisting that anyone who claims the world will end on that date sign a contract turning over all their worldly goods to me on 1st January 2013.
Let's see how committed they are to this theory that the world will end in 2012.
-
Can anyone else get in on that? I'm itching to be on the winning side of an argument on this site for once :D.
-
Maybe I should start a charity then? The "Sign here or shut the **** up about the Mayan calander" foundation. :D
Most Atheists are really agnostics anyway
Depends, once again, on your definition of the word. I personally do not like the definition of agnostics as a subset of atheists. It's rather confusing and contradictory of the word itself. Especially since it is possible to be agnostic and theistic at the same time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist).
-
Well, that's more a game played with the English language than anything else, I think theistic agnostics are just people who don't want to take any chances whatsoever ;)
-
Yep. There are a lot of different ways to distinguish it. But bear in mind that strong atheists when saying "There is no God" are mostly saying "On the balance of all evidence and probability, there is no God"
And it's still very wrong.
If it's so easy to see and so more probable that God doesn't exist, then there wouldn't be nearly enough believers...especially among men of science.
People, even very intelligent people, believe in all kinds of ridiculous things without any evidence whatsoever because they simply want to. That doesn't give any of those things any kind of credence.
For example, I know full well that dogs do not smile and it is simply a matter of the way their facial muscles operate in conjunction with teeth in an open mouth that approximates what the human brain is hard-wired to interpret as a smile. But that doesn't stop me from interpreting that expression on a dog as meaning they're "happy."
Historically, more people in the history of humanity have NOT believed in a single God than have. Where does that land your theory?
Human beings are inquistive and naturally driven to provide explanations for things. In the absence of a logical reason for something, they invoke reasons beyond their comprehension because it solves the problem. Why is the sky blue? Because a god made it blue. Who knows why, gods work in mysterious ways. Next question.
Religion is a way of explaining the world around us in the absence of specific knowledge. Just because it's a popular explanation doesn't make it right... or do you still think the Earth is flat and the center of the universe too?
-
Well, that's more a game played with the English language than anything else, I think theistic agnostics are just people who don't want to take any chances whatsoever ;)
Nonetheless it doesn't really serve the language well to lump atheists and agnostics in the same group and use atheists as the term to describe that group. Because by doing that you simply make it harder to describe someone who doesn't believe in gods.
-
Just because it's a popular explanation doesn't make it right... or do you still think the Earth is flat and the center of the universe too?
Maybe the universe, can't really disprove that one :lol:. Seriously, no.
On a side note, I can still be religious and not be idiotically superstitious. That's for people who don't like to think.
-
I thought about that but for one, the bible was written by man, and for two, "created in his own image" can be interpreted in different ways and might mean "what God's imagination came up with" like if I made a computer in my own image, it could mean how I wanted to create it, and not "modeled after how God looks", and even if man is supposed to be modeled after how God looks, it doesn't mean God is a "he" since likeness doesn't mean created exactly how God looks. Likeness means similar, not exact.
Copy pasted from:
http://www.dreadgazebo.com/gunporn/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/svdb_smaller.jpg
Which says that's NIV translation so it should be fairly acurate to the original greek/hebrew/source.
If you are the proponent of the theory that God is actually an XT race who came here and engineered us from existing life than that could mean they made us look like them. Remember, 2012 is when They(the race that built/showed how to build megalithic architecture) come back.
You believe this stuff?
-
All atheist means is that the person doesn't believe in a god or gods. It's as simple as that.
Lack of belief is not quite the same as belief of lack. So no, it's not as simple as that.
About the Earth being flat idea: Some scientists say that what we see as objects being round is just an illusion caused by the space/time distortions from gravity. You know the term "flat universe"? I think flat universe is what is meant by them saying planets being round is an illusion. So I guess some people could still believe it is flat.
Aaaargh.
No.
...just, no. :ick:
Universe being "flat" is a sentence that manages to marvellously confuse everyone who doesn't know what it means.
Flat space is simply another term for euclidian space. That is because euclidian space is in the famous "rubber sheet analogy" represented by flat sheet. Euclidian space means simply that its geometry is euclidian - for example, straight lines that are tangential at some point of space will never cross each other at any point of euclidian space. The dimensions of euclidian or "flat" space are completely perpendicular and regular, without any anomalies.
To say that "universe is flat" means that within observation threshold the overall, average geometry of the universe appears to be euclidian.
Now, what objects with gravitational mass do to space is that they locally non-euclidize it. They curve space-time slightly, resulting in a situation that we do not in fact live in completely euclidian space - but close enough that it doesn't matter. Good example of stuff that happens in non-euclidian curved space is that the sum of the angles of a triangle might be something else than 180 degrees, and you might be able to put a bit more than one litre of liquid in a 10x10x10 cm cube than you could in euclidian space. Practically though you would need a black hole or at least a neutron star for this kind of effects, but that's what curvature of space-time does (in a nutshell, it's a bit more complex issue).
Also, the sky is blue because of the way the gases interact with the light from the sun and therefore, the atmosphere reflects more blue and ultra-violent light and absorbs more of the red light and probably infrared too. So if it reflected more red and infrared light and absorbed more blue and ultra-violet light, the sky would appear a beautiful red.
Yes.
That is a better explanation than "Wizard Did It", because it actually offers an explanation, not an assertion (and it is experimentally verifiable hypothesis). Which is why religious scientists don't mix their faith with their job. I don't personally give a damn what anyone believes to be behind the world that we can observe. Scientists with some degree of faith in any religion generally don't either. It's when arguments based on dogmas and religious authorities start to affect how other people should live their lives that starts to annoy me. Just like any other enforcing of random opinions would annoy me.
"A lot of criminals are children of unmarried mothers; therefore getting married should be required for having children at all."
"This and that is wrong because it harms our children, if you disagree you want harm done to the children."
"This economy model is correct because it benefits all people except those it screws over and kills. If you want to help those who can't help themselves you are doing harm to the society as a whole."
"There's no need for economy; we provide you with all we think you need. When everyone does their part, everyone prospers."
An observant reader might notice which economical ideologies are caricatured there. You might also notice that I do not approve with either extremities.
And when this kind of opinions are stuffed in my face, when the logical errors of argumentation are so glaringly obvious that it would take a blind, deaf and mute man to agree with them*, it becomes very annoying, especially when counter-arguments are usually fruitless because they are against the opinions of the other side, so they are obviously wrong, and obviously the logic leading to them is flawed as well - and when that is determined, no analysis of the actual logic used in the counter-argumentation is necessary. Simple denial is enough for true faith.
"An open mind is like a fortress with its gate unbarred and unguarded." :rolleyes:
Also, literate interpretation of the translation of a book several millennia in the making is hardly the most fruitful method of analysis ever.
If I would have to pick an opinion about what "in God's image" means, I would say that God made human beings similar to himself in the way we think, how we exist and perceive ourselves as sentient beings, not how we look like. Luminous beings we are, not this crude matter, as the little guy said.
Or like someone (I think it was C.S.Lewis) said with a fairly good point; "we do not have souls, we have a body." (or something like that).
Assuming that against all probability and scientific evidence, God really decided to create us as we are. Which do you think he would have paid more attention to, body or mind (or soul if you want to call it that)? He had just spent a whole lot of days making all sorts of critters, you would imagine that designing the bodywork would be fairly routinized by this point. Fixating on what kind of body the God made for this purpose doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the context of the story.
...of course, as the story goes, God chose to exclude the ability to perceive right and wrong (or good and evil).
Why God would want to create an equal in cognitive abilities with no concept of right and wrong (essentially a species of sociopaths) eludes me. I can't think of any good reason why anyone would do that.
Of course all this is purely academical, but worth a thought nevertheless. Dogmatic thinking of people who call themselves Christians is actually much more annoying than Christianity itself, and even though I don't have any faith in religions or supernatural or divine myself, it's worth doing some thinking on these matters and not just follow whichever opinion you first happen to be exposed to.
*blind and deaf because that way he can't read or hear the argument. And if he learns to read braille, he needs to be mute to not be able to disagree...
-
Or like someone (I think it was C.S.Lewis) said with a fairly good point; "we do not have souls, we have a body." (or something like that).
Lewis' quote runs thusly. "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body."
So, not perhaps terribly supportive. On the other hand, I do believe in the soul even though I don't believe in God and think that if we ever do prove he exists, we need to get rid of him.
-
Here's a question to Christians: How many of us have being baptized under their free will? (not me) :doubt:
-
"First time I met a priest, the bastard tried to drown me..."
-
The idea of public Baptism is following one of verses in the New Testament, which tells Christians to affirm they're faith before they're friends and family in the congregation.
It's actually a little more important from a symbolic standpoint as it symbolizes the death of your old life and your resurrection into new life with Christ.
Which is why I don't get sprinkling kids when they're newborns, they're innocent of anything at that point.
-
Which is why I don't get sprinkling kids when they're newborns, they're innocent of anything at that point.
Well, if God is possible who the hell knows what else is..
-
The idea of public Baptism is following one of verses in the New Testament, which tells Christians to affirm they're faith before they're friends and family in the congregation.
It's actually a little more important from a symbolic standpoint as it symbolizes the death of your old life and your resurrection into new life with Christ.
Which is why I don't get sprinkling kids when they're newborns, they're innocent of anything at that point.
If you're born as a human baby, it means you didn't deserve to be reincarnated as a bonobo or a dolphin.
-
If you were reincarnated as a dolphin you'd be a lot better off :P
-
That's exactly what the joke was.
-
If you were reincarnated as a dolphin you'd be a lot better off :P
Except for the gangrape.
-
If you were reincarnated as a dolphin you'd be a lot better off :P
Dolphins are sex-crazed thrill-killers. (Seriously. They kill porpises for the lulz. Perhaps they're racist? :P)
-
seriously, people are all like 'dolphins are so beautiful and free all the time'
it ain't all just swimming and eating fish, people.
-
They're trying to tell us the world is ending. :P
-
They kill sharks for fun.
-
If you were reincarnated as a dolphin you'd be a lot better off :P
Dolphins are sex-crazed thrill-killers. (Seriously. They kill porpises for the lulz. Perhaps they're racist? :P)
EXACTLY
-
They kill sharks for fun.
Only in the same way that people used to kill tigers. Yeah it's mostly for fun but they are a threat to them too.
Porpoises on the other hand are not a threat to them.
-
They're trying to tell us the world is ending. :P
Sounds like the beginning of the movie "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
That's the point. ;7