Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Marxism
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 361 of 526 (553697)
04-04-2010 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Faith
04-04-2010 6:35 PM


Re: Webster's definition of POLITICS
Faith writes:
You really believe that what I'm saying I'm making up?
Oh, no, I do not believe or suggest that you are making it up.
What I do suggest is that other people are making it up, feeding it to people like you in a strongly emotional message, and thereby conning you into become an agent of their spreading of lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 6:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 6:58 PM nwr has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 362 of 526 (553703)
04-04-2010 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by nwr
04-04-2010 6:41 PM


Stealing -- absolute or relative
Somebody is making up lies about the objective meaning of stealing?
Oh, you mean Glenn Beck again? But I told you I don't listen to him, or Rush Limbaugh. If they happen to say something along the lines of what I'm saying I would have to guess they get it from the same source I do, their conscience.
And history too. I could just as easily have made my same argument fifty years ago as now. This idea that stealing is whatever the law says it is would never have been accepted by people fifty years ago.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by nwr, posted 04-04-2010 6:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by DC85, posted 04-04-2010 7:13 PM Faith has replied
 Message 365 by nwr, posted 04-04-2010 7:18 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 368 by ReverendDG, posted 04-04-2010 9:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 363 of 526 (553704)
04-04-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
04-04-2010 6:58 PM


Re: Stealing -- absolute or relative
You keep ignoring me have I offended you? I'd honestly like to know how you feel about these questions
quote:
faith writes:
And you guys really think you live in the real world. What can I say.
I responded
the majority of the free western world don't have as much problems with these things as we seem to in this country.....
Maybe part of our population isn't living in the real world and are falling for a delusion created by the large corporations who own all media outlets? Just an idea....? We should explore all ideas

quote:
faith wrote:
Unfortunately "the people" becomes a fiction the government just co-opts to itself when it acts independently
I responded:
I don't think they're acting independently.... I do believe they either act on people or act on the large amounts of money paid to them for campaigns
Perhaps the ones who act for the people are the ones who depend on private individual campaigns? The ones who don't depend on corporate funding ? The second one has become far more common in the past few decades.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 6:58 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 7:17 PM DC85 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 364 of 526 (553706)
04-04-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by DC85
04-04-2010 7:13 PM


Re: Stealing -- absolute or relative
I just don't have any idea what you are saying, no offense going on. I am very tired and my mind is elsewhere and it would take too much work to figure out what you are saying. I'm sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by DC85, posted 04-04-2010 7:13 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by DC85, posted 04-04-2010 7:26 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 370 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2010 9:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 365 of 526 (553707)
04-04-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
04-04-2010 6:58 PM


Re: Stealing -- absolute or relative
Faith writes:
Somebody is making up lies about the objective meaning of stealing?
Meanings are subjective, not objective.
People are making up stories about taxation amounting to stealing. And they are using highly emotional appeals to spread these stories.
Faith writes:
I could just as easily have made my same argument fifty years ago as now.
Yes, you could have. And you would have been laughed out of town for spreading such obvious nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 6:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 366 of 526 (553710)
04-04-2010 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
04-04-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Stealing -- absolute or relative
I just don't have any idea what you are saying, no offense going on. I am very tired and my mind is elsewhere and it would take too much work to figure out what you are saying. I'm sorry.
What I'm saying is maybe the people who have the money are controlling the government.
What reason would the government have to act against the people that elected them unless something more insidious was going on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 7:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 367 of 526 (553723)
04-04-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Faith
04-04-2010 6:07 PM


Re: Webster's definition of POLITICS
Faith writes:
I think Faith understands that the stealing she's talking about isn't against the law because at one point she did say that the laws being broken were moral, not legal.
I'm not quite sure if this is what I'm saying or not. It may be. Welfare isn't against the law so according to the law and most everyone here it's not stealing, but it IS stealing by any natural definition of stealing. If that's what you meant I meant, OK.
Much of what you say you say is both internally and externally inconsistent. You frequently contradict both yourself and reality.
In this particular case you seem unsure of what you yourself have said. This is you from Message 267 stating uneqivocally that you're talking about moral not human law (I used the same font you did):
Faith in Message 267 writes:
The word UNLAWFULLY. In the sense I speak of stealing I think in terms of a universal absolute moral law, not human law....
I supersized that paragraph because it's an edit it and I want it to be noticed, not because I'm "shouting."
So I noticed it, remembered it, mentioned it to someone else, only to discover that you don't seem to remember saying it.
Faith in Message 352 writes:
There are many places on the web and in the world that I can go where I'm just one of many who believe as I do.
I would love to visit a discussion board where you're just like everyone else and fit right in. Could you point us to one? Why don't you invite your friends here so they can give you some support?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 6:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 9:49 PM Percy has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 368 of 526 (553730)
04-04-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by Faith
04-04-2010 6:58 PM


Re: Stealing -- absolute or relative
Somebody is making up lies about the objective meaning of stealing?
what objective meaning of stealing? i've never heard of one.
Oh, you mean Glenn Beck again? But I told you I don't listen to him, or Rush Limbaugh. If they happen to say something along the lines of what I'm saying I would have to guess they get it from the same source I do, their conscience.
i'd say no, rather it all comes from a lower region of the human body.
And history too. I could just as easily have made my same argument fifty years ago as now. This idea that stealing is whatever the law says it is would never have been accepted by people fifty years ago.
if the people 50 years ago were as dumb as bricks maybe, the laws have no changed faith. stealing has always been the unlawful taking of someone elses property, using taxes in a way you don't like is not unlawful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 6:58 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 369 of 526 (553733)
04-04-2010 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Faith
04-04-2010 6:10 PM


The Absolute Principle
It wouldn't matter what people said about this. People can be wrong. What matters is the absolute principle involved.
But we are just talking about what words mean. So if everyone disagrees with you, then you're wrong. If you want to say that there is some "absolute principle" that means that the word "elephant" means "lawnmower", then you are wrong. "Elephant" means elephant, and "stealing" means stealing. Stealing is unlawfully depriving someone of their property. That's what stealing means. You don't get to change it just because it would suit your political ideology for it to mean something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 6:10 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 9:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 370 of 526 (553734)
04-04-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Faith
04-04-2010 7:17 PM


Re: Stealing -- absolute or relative
I just don't have any idea what you are saying, no offense going on. I am very tired and my mind is elsewhere and it would take too much work to figure out what you are saying. I'm sorry.
Perhaps that should be the last post that you ever make on this forum.
It seems to sum it up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 7:17 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 371 of 526 (553737)
04-04-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Percy
04-04-2010 8:46 PM


Contradictions, moral law, helpers, niceness
Much of what you say you say is both internally and externally inconsistent. You frequently contradict both yourself and reality.
I beg your pardon, this is how it looks to you, it is not how it looks to anyone with either modernist or Biblical presuppositions.
In this particular case you seem unsure of what you yourself have said. This is you from Message 267 stating uneqivocally that you're talking about moral not human law (I used the same font you did):
Faith in Message 267 writes:
The word UNLAWFULLY. In the sense I speak of stealing I think in terms of a universal absolute moral law, not human law....
I supersized that paragraph because it's an edit it and I want it to be noticed, not because I'm "shouting."
So I noticed it, remembered it, mentioned it to someone else, only to discover that you don't seem to remember saying it.
Seems to me I didn't specifically remember it because you had only said "moral law" which doesn't QUITE reflect anything I've said, and it turns out you had left out the UNIVERSAL and ABSOLUTE, which for me are essential qualifiers, especially in talking to anyone who doesn't share my assumptions. I'm very leery of being misunderstood and misrepresented and wasn't sure if you had grasped my point and I'm still not QUITE sure, but I suspect that on the important elements you haven't.
It was more important to me to make the point that an absolute moral law overrides human laws. I was trying to talk about a moral law that is in all of us and over all of us and over all government as well. Otherwise "moral law" could be taken to mean something at the human level rather than the universal level and relative rather than absolute.
Now that I see the context I see no contradiction in it. The contradiction is added by your own frame of reference.
Faith in Message 352 writes:
There are many places on the web and in the world that I can go where I'm just one of many who believe as I do.
I would love to visit a discussion board where you're just like everyone else and fit right in. Could you point us to one? Why don't you invite your friends here so they can give you some support?
I wish I knew some people who are into creationism or into arguing with leftists because I'd love to have some help here. I had some friends from a conservative forum come here last time around and they got as frustrated and fed up as I can get, but unlike me they didn't stick around. Fair Witness I believe came and argued politics a bit but threw up her hands in disgust and never came back, and Canadian Steve would come back to argue about Islam when I asked him to, but he believes in evolution so he's no help to me in that debate. Others tell me they can't stand the atmosphere where people believe as you all do. They aren't debaters and they don't like conflict and for anyone who thinks like a conservative or Christian there's no way to avoid lots of that here.
On creationism I've found myself on message boards with Christians who are theistic evolutionists rather than YECs and there's no way they're going to be any help to me here. They also argue Bible or Big Bang or astronomy when I want to argue biology or geology.
I'm sure you know that there are plenty of other people out there who believe in absolute truth and absolute moral law. Oh, believe me, I know I'm an oddball wherever I go, but as far as the basic philosophies go that we are discussing here I fit right into many venues out there. That's what I had in mind. When I get too crazy around here I go listen to some good preaching or Christian teaching where I know what I think will be reflected and augmented.
It seems to me, if I may be so bold as to suggest it, that just a LITTLE bit of giving me the benefit of the doubt and considering that I MIGHT not be contradicting myself but that I'm saying something I mean even though it isn't immediately apparent to you, and that your sense of a contradiction COULD EVEN be the result of the clash of worldviews I've been talking about, could help a lot toward just general niceness around here.
And you could start by applying that to THIS post.
Cheers.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Percy, posted 04-04-2010 8:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by DC85, posted 04-04-2010 10:16 PM Faith has replied
 Message 400 by Percy, posted 04-05-2010 8:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 372 of 526 (553739)
04-04-2010 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Dr Adequate
04-04-2010 9:27 PM


Re: The Absolute Principle
But we are just talking about what words mean. So if everyone disagrees with you, then you're wrong.
Well, there it is again, Dr. A. What words mean is not a function of what people think. Words have an objective meaning despite all human influences that distort them.
If you want to say that there is some "absolute principle" that means that the word "elephant" means "lawnmower", then you are wrong. "Elephant" means elephant, and "stealing" means stealing. Stealing is unlawfully depriving someone of their property. That's what stealing means. You don't get to change it just because it would suit your political ideology for it to mean something else.
Your remark about the elephant and the lawnmower is just your inability to grasp what I'm saying and unwillingness to try.
About stealing, you don't even seem to know or care that you have a relativistic view of this and that there is and always used to be another view, the absolutist view and that half the world disagrees with you about such things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2010 9:27 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by nwr, posted 04-04-2010 11:04 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 382 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2010 11:15 PM Faith has replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 373 of 526 (553741)
04-04-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Faith
04-04-2010 9:49 PM


Re: Contradictions, moral law, helpers, niceness
It was more important to me to make the point that an absolute moral law overrides human laws
So this absolute moral law defines "stealing" as taking from one to give to another. I can accept that for the sake of argument. I am however still perplexed why it doesn't apply to the Police departments which use tax money and take from another to give/protect another.
I'm honestly trying to understand the distinction but I still can't see where you're drawing this line.
or into arguing with leftists because I'd love to have some help here. I had some friends from a conservative forum come here last time around and they got as frustrated
I wish you could because when I go over to those forums they automatically start name calling when I ask questions.. Republicans tend to do this far more the Libertarians do though. I Never have had a Republican take the time to discuss it. Normally they get mad and call me a "Libtard" and that's as far as it goes. I thought I had been respectful yet that's the treatment I get.
who thinks like a conservative or Christian there's no way to avoid lots of that here.
Should a liberal Christian be offended by this? I know a good many.
. Others tell me they can't stand the atmosphere where people believe as you all do.
I enjoy diversity and learning about what others believe but 98% Christians and Conservatives don't seem to want the same. I love when I find someone in that 2%
Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 9:49 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 10:21 PM DC85 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 374 of 526 (553742)
04-04-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by DC85
04-04-2010 10:16 PM


Re: Contradictions, moral law, helpers, niceness
So this absolute moral law defines "stealing" as taking from one to give to another. I can accept that for the sake of argument. I am however still perplexed why it doesn't apply to the Police departments which use tax money and take from another to give/protect another.
The police DO something in exchange for the money they get from the government. They WORK to protect the community. They are being PAID for their WORK.
The needy do NOT do anything for the community in exchange for the money they get from the government. They are not being paid for anything, they are GIVEN the money for nothing they do in exchange.
ABE:
or into arguing with leftists because I'd love to have some help here. I had some friends from a conservative forum come here last time around and they got as frustrated
I wish you could because when I go over to those forums they automatically start name calling when I ask questions.. Republicans tend to do this far more the Libertarians do though. I Never have had a Republican take the time to discuss it. Normally they get mad and call me a "Libtard" and that's as far as it goes. I thought I had been respectful yet that's the treatment I get.
It happens in both places. Very few liberals or leftists stick around at the conservative sites. I object to some of the conservative attitudes myself but beyond that there just is a huge worldview clash. I'm enormously cheered that I feel I now recognize some of how it happens, but I don't have a solution to it.
who thinks like a conservative or Christian there's no way to avoid lots of that here.
Should a liberal Christian be offended by this? I know a good many.
Maybe, because in my experience liberal Christians think more like liberals than like Christians, and I'm sure they say the same about us on the conservative side.
Others tell me they can't stand the atmosphere where people believe as you all do.
I enjoy diversity and learning about what others believe but 98% Christians and Conservatives don't seem to want the same. I love when I find someone in that 2%
I hope you succeed, but truly this philosophical chasm is SO wide the best I think can be found is people determined to be nice no matter what kind of treatment they get -- and I've seen liberals do that on conservative boards and certainly conservatives and Christians who do that here, but no real change in the worldview of either side.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by DC85, posted 04-04-2010 10:16 PM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by DC85, posted 04-04-2010 10:32 PM Faith has replied
 Message 393 by subbie, posted 04-05-2010 12:28 AM Faith has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 375 of 526 (553746)
04-04-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
04-04-2010 10:21 PM


Re: Contradictions, moral law, helpers, niceness
The needy do NOT do anything for the community in exchange for the money they get from the government. They are not being paid for anything, they are GIVEN the money for nothing they do in exchange.
I disagree if you allow them to fail and become homeless they will have an effect on the economics and the social structure of the society. The vast majority of them do get back on their feet and do become productive members of the society again. If they didn't get this help they wouldn't be.
How is this not helping the community and greater good? Of course there are a few that abuse the system but they're less common then you might think. Statistics show it does work.
I

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 10:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 04-04-2010 10:35 PM DC85 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024