Marxism

Yup, I was very wrong that I could handle the treatment I get here. Needed to learn that I guess. Sorry about that. But I've been quite willing to be banned again if you're of a mind to do that.However, I still would like to get back to the bio thread. No time at the momenty.Cheers.

Yet you willingly participate in this "evil" system. That means you are complicit and benefit from this system's "evilness". That in essense makes you, "Evil" (in my best Dr. Evil voice). Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning is? (Probably not, but it is worth a shot) My point is the IRS is part of the "evil" federal empire that is giving you money which you have no problem participating in. If it is so evil to the point that you are speaking about it on blogs and forums, than why in blue blazes do you participate in this "evil" system.Here is what I consider really evil: the Holocaust, genocide, child abuse, child pornography, slavery, human trafficing, rape, torture, etc.Hmm, welfare is nowhere on my list. Curious where do you put welfare on the above list? So you justify participating in "EVIL" because you have no other choice? If you hate our government so much, why do you live here?Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Faith, your issues are twofold:1) you react emotionally to any perceived slight, real or imagined2) you refuse to even consider any opposing view. Your views are set in stone, and will not be changed, by logic, reason, or anything else short of actual divine intervention.Just look at the progress of this thread. You've become frustrated to the point of childishness with your caps lock and silly insults. I'll certainly grant that in some cases you've been goaded on - but the vast majority of posts here have been people attempting to explain something to you from dozens of different perspectives in the hope that just one of them will get through to you. Instead, though, you take disagreement as personal insult, responding with anger and the repetition of your (often self-contradictory) views, louder and with more acerbic language.Quite honestly Faith, I don't think you're capable of honest and open debate. I think that you've demonstrated that in any topic you bring up, whether it be evolution, politics, religion, or anything else, your views will be solidly etched in immutable stone beforehand, and no amount of evidence or argument will be able to penetrate the impregnable fortress of your defensiveness and emotional tantrums.Your constant mantra is that we don;t understand what you're saying. But, Faith, we see exactly what you write.In the other thread when you say that mutations are irrelevant to the reduction or increase in diversity through selection, we understand that that means you haven't the foggiest clue how evolution does or does not work, regardless of what you've read or studied. When you ignore examples where diversity is reduced to zero by beginning with a single, individual organism (the ultimate reduction in diversity through selection), and then watching as diversity naturally increases, you demonstrate that you will ignore evidence counter to your view and label anything you disagree with as "irrelevant" or "you just don;t understand what I'm saying."In this thread, you've provided nothing more than emotional iterations of "you don't have the right to take my money!" You don't pay attention to what is or is not similar to welfare. You don;t care what we say. You don't care if welfare is in fact comparable to any other government program - you disagree with it for absolutely no rational reason, and you label it as "stealing" even though such programs match no legal definition for that term, and the "moral" argument that welfare constitutes "stealing" only seems to apply for you - it's "stealing" because you don't like it, period. Even if you're benefiting directly from identical programs.I don't think it's a matter of slowing down responses or taking a break. I don't think it;s a matter of reading more books, or more discussion to reach common ground. there is no common ground, Faith, because you are not interested in debate, discussion, logic or argument. You just want other people to validate your personal views, and anything else serves only to enrage you.

Devils Advocate said: OK, I'm dead.

Yes, well, that's your choice. You choose to profit off theft (as you believe) instead of depending on Christian charity. You denounce one system as "stealing" and believe that the other was instituted by God incarnate. But which one do you prefer to live off?

Right, Rahvin,
no good REASON for my reiterations of course, I just do it for the entertainment value.And of course you are absolutely right about everything and especially about my character and my motivations, which are of course NOTHING BUT evil and duplicitous and self deceived and worse. YOU know what's motivating me, YOU know why I do what I do, there's not ONE thing I could ever say about any of it that is really the truth, you're the mindreaders here. I'm stupid, I don't know what I'm talking about, I've said nothing of any value here whatever, and you're all just SO right and I'm SO wrong and, really, what else is there to say?Cheers

You're SO right Dr. A as you always are. I should be shot. No, I should be tarred and feathered and run out of EvC ahead of all your pitchforks. No, I should be hanged. No, just slapped around I guess. Just denounced and denounced and denounced as if I were the only sinner in the room. Which no doubt I am of course.Cheers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course there's a reason, Faith. I think you want to see your views validated by others, as I said. It's even a good reason. The problem is that your arguments are never affected by anything. You concede nothing, evidence and logic and argument all roll off of you like they never existed. There is literally nothing I or anyone else could say, accurate or inaccurate, that would make you change your position. You will still view welfare as theft. You will still believe that evolution is false because selection reduced net variety, and that mutations are irrelevant. I never said that. I don't think you're evil, Faith. I just don't think you're able to participate in an open and honest debate. I think that your immediate reaction to disagreement is emotional defensiveness, and I think that emotional reaction overrides any possibility of a logical and rational exchange. Others have called you a liar. I have not. I don't think you're lying, Faith. I think you believe every word you type, even when you say things that the rest of us see as contradictory. I think you really believe that welfare is stealing and immoral, even though you receive government rent assistance. I believe you when you say you're reluctant to accept such aid, and I think the contradiction inherent in accepting aid when you believe that the aid is a form of theft creates cognitive dissonance, not dishonesty or "evil." I don't think you're stupid. I think you're stubborn, and react more with emotion than with logic. Your arguments in your evolution threads betray the fact that, despite how much you've read, how much you've participated here, and how many videos you've watched, you still don't understand the mechanism described by the Theory of Evolution. Your attempt to talk about reductions in diversity while insisting that mutations are irrelevant are much like trying to talk about an internal combustion engine without discussing valves and cylinders. Your posts in this thread show that, when it comes to welfare, you do not see or acknowledge in any way the benefits to society as a whole to providing such a safety net; you see only your pre-conceived moral absolute.I think, in both cases, this is due to the fact that you immediately become emotionally defensive when someone tries to disagree with you or offer correction to a misconception on your part. It's not about who's right or wrong. Especially in this thread, we're talking about an extremely complex social issue where easy, black/white, right/wring answers just don't exist.It's about discussion, and you you debate. Or rather, that you don't debate. You state your views, and when someone challenges those views, you become emotional and defensive to the point that you resort to childishness like the very post I'm replying to.You don't address points. You don't respond with evidence. You don't even acknowledge that I've made any statements. You simply throw emotional, sarcastic venom at a perceived insult as you become defensive.

LOL. Your a hoot Faith.I don't think I am any better than you. I am just trying to get you to think rationally and critically, that is all. You are taking this way to personally.If you want to ignore logic and reason than there is nothing else I can say to you.Some food for thought. Have a good day and enjoy life.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Classic. This is what is called the self-martyr phase of trying to win an argument.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Yes, well, Rahvin, you have the local understanding of me down pat and there's nothing I can say about it. Throughout this thread I was trying to say some things I thought were pretty straightforward and obvious once said, but boy did I find out otherwise. The simplest point I wanted to make got chewed up in this amazing irrational system I only finally got a bit of a grip on when nwr made his Message 237. That's how I saw it then and i still see it that way now.ABE Example of simple point: Used a neocon leader's life story as evidence for Communism/Marxism in America. Could that SIMPLE piece of information get a hearing AT ALL here? NaaOther point I also thought was simple was simply that stealing is taking from someone without giving anything in exchange. You'd think it would be simple. Ha!I shouldn't have lost my cool I suppose. Funny though, I don't know if it was necessarily a bad thing that I did. But the way I explain losing it is it's like what happens to a person who has a legitimate cause who is being treated like a crazy person and can't get her cause across. It's an amazing situation to be in. of course there's the part where you think if you scream it maybe they'll snap awake and finally see what you've been saying all along. That never works of course. But there's this other part that you're talking into a systematic worldview that just chews you up and spits you out. I recently saw "Changeling" where the mother's boy was kidnapped and the police and other authorties treated her like a crazy woman for simply telling the truth. That's how I feel around here.So I just kept trying to get it across. Didn't happen. I still see your arguments exactly the same way. I think we have a genuine clash of extremely different worldviews here. Just because there is only one of me and twenty of you doesn't make you all right, believe it or not.About the theory of evolution, I understand it just fine, I don't agree with it. I have a pretty decent IQ, it's not that hard to get the idea of evolution. You all have conniption fits at creationists NOT because we don't get it but because we think it's wrong. We interpret the same facts differently. We get it just fine. But you all keep thinking you just have to beat us up with more of the theory. Doesn't work like that. Some poor creationists give in at what LOOKS like evidence for evolution. I feel sorry for them. There should be REAL evidence IF it's true. But there hasn't been any because it isn't true.I know, you're rolling your eyes and tearing your hair. Oh well.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I agree with Rhavin. I think he is spot on.BTW, I have never called you evil or a liar. My mention of you being what you call "evil" (notice the quotation marks) is an attempt to get you to think rationally through this. That is I am using your, not my, thought process that you are a willing participant in what you think is an "evil" system, and therefore by your definition, not mine, you are logically "evil".However, I don't think this IS an evil system (welfare) and therefore do not think you are evil. If that makes any sense.Take it for what it is worth.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi Faith.This whole thread has been fascinating, to say the least. I have one minor quibble with this: I'm sure this has not escaped the attention of most of the followers of this thread, but surely you agree that your friends and family are already currently being, as you say, "forced" to help you, yes? They're stolen from (as you've repeatedly described it) in order to "help you", correct? Perhaps the cognitive dissonance in this particular situation results from the degree of dissociation between the "givers" and the "taker". Does the absence of the exchange of actual monetary notes from the hands of your friends and family to your hands, make it different in your mind, somehow? I'm not intending to add one more body to the dogpile, but just curious. Again, fascinating... Have a good one, Faith.

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

Absolutely. That way I know it's a gift to me.And over the years I've received quite a bit from friends and family. AND, when I've been in a position to do so, I've been the one doing the giving to them, since my fortunes have not stayed on the same plane all all these years.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course there is. If you think I'm wrong about a given point, you can always say so, and why. I understand, Faith. I compeltely understand why you think welfare is stealing. And while I also agree with nwr that the term "stealing" provokes a strong emotional response, I still get why you use the term.I still disagree that it applies, even under your definition. But that's beside the point. Apologies - I came to the thread late, when discussion had already moved on to welfare. Quite honestly, I see the term "communism" and "marxism" and even "soacialism" as emotion-laden boogeymen, terms that are used not to refer to any socieconomic system in particular so much as to carry negative connotations, much like calling someone a "nazi."To be frank, I favor practicality. I certainly don't favor the examples of communism we've seen in the world so fa, because they plainly haven't worked for the benefit of the societies that used them. However, I won;t immediately dismiss a proposition simply because someone labels it "Marxist." Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and even a system that doesn't work as a whole may have some useful nuggets we can learn from. If it benefits society, I'm likely to favor it, even if I don;t directly see benefits. It certainly can be. The problem, Faith, is that you stopped reading what others were saying compeltely. Maybe you scanned the words, but you never even acknowledged cetain statements.It was pointed out to you in several posts (I know I did so multiple times just myself) that we all do get something back from welfare, and so by your own definition it cannot qualify as "stealing."You didn't once attempt to falsify the social benefits of welfare. You never even acknowledged that we had said anything about it. That's the behavior that makes it difficult or impossible for you to have an open and honest debate. I can hardly criticize when it comes to losing one's temper in debate. Buz particularly has been able to get a rise out of me.It's not anger that's the issue. It's what you do with it. You don;t just get angry, you become defensive to the point of ignoring your opponents' words. Rather than providing an argument, you hand out sarcasm. Instead of addressing points, you use caps lock and repeat yourself. Instead of in any way acknowledging that you might be wrong, you say that everybody else just isn't understanding. Indeed, an argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, and I couldn't agree more.The problem, though is that despite a dogpile of people repeating some of the same points, you ignore them. Once again, using your definition of "stealing" as taking something for which you are given nothing in return, many people informed you of the social and even individual benefits of a welfare program. You never argued that point - you never acknowledged that it was made, though it was made many times by many posters.The fact that you, personally directly benefit from the welfare programs you continue to pay into with your part-time employment (meaning you are receiving something directly in exchange for what was taken in taxes) has prompted you to mention how reluctant and even potentially hypocritical you are, but you cannot seem to realize that your own example falsifies welfare as stealing even under your own definition of the term.The issue has nothing to do with the number of people supporting an idea, but what you choose to simply ignore that makes it impossible for debate to continue.You feel like the only sane person in a madhouse, and we all feel like we're arguing with a brick wall. I'm sorry, Faith, but your own posts show that you don't. You cannot exclude mutations when talking about a net increase or reduction in diversity any more than you can talk about human respiration without mentioning the lungs.Disagreement is fine - it's how debate starts. But, and I say this without any malice or insult intended, you would fail a high-school level Biology exam on evolution from what you've posted here. Again, I never said you were stupid. I simply think that your pre-existing beliefs prevent you from grasping the concept to a sufficient degree to talk about it accurately.You cannot talk about variety in evolution without mutations.Selection takes away variance by killing off (or at least reducing the population of) the less fit.Mutation adds variety by directly causing the emergence of altered features.Even if you so strongly select for a given attribute (say, long beaks) that no other possible allele can survive in the population, other alleles (say, ones that control feather color, or what have you) will be unaffected and will continue to drift or be guided under their own selective pressures. The process of mutation never stops, and selective pressures change over time with the environment, so variety continues to increase so long as a breeding population continues to exist. Even when variety is reduced to effectively nil by selecting only a single individual organism (meaning only one option for every allele, no variance at all), we still see variety increase as the population grows, and even still as we kill off large segments of that population with a new selective pressure. Not at all, Faith. If you can poke a hole in any scientific theiry, evolution or otherwise, I'd be supremely intrigued. But you have to address teh actual theory, not just your comprehension. The version of evolution in your head is significantly different from the version in mine, or in a biologist's. Of course it's not true.It's accurate given the evidence we have available. That's the thing, Faith you're talking about "truth," and you think you already have the supreme "truth" fromt eh Bible. You;re just trying to find the specific facts that back you up, and you "know" they must be there because of teh Bible.Science isn't about truth. It's about accuracy. So far, every prediction we make using the Theory of Evolution is validated by the evidence we find. That means that, even if it's not quite right, it at least produces pretty accurate results.To attack the Theory of Evolution, you need to point out a prediction it makes, and show how that prediction is falsified - show where the theory is inaccurate.