Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is Your Worldview?
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 108 (140631)
09-07-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Phat
09-07-2004 5:37 AM


Re: WAR OF THE WORDS
quote:
So lets say that somehow, the revolution succeeded and the whole world was marxist. What type of a Utopian society do you envision? Do you trust human nature that much?
I refuse to answer such a loaded question; its off topic anyway. I do not enviusion any form of Utopian society, I envision a pragmatic one. Thats the whole point - to get away from the Utopianism of theistically-based systems and into something arrived at rationally, from a materialist basis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 09-07-2004 5:37 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Phat, posted 09-07-2004 11:37 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 100 by berberry, posted 09-08-2004 1:41 AM contracycle has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 92 of 108 (140651)
09-07-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by contracycle
09-07-2004 10:25 AM


Re: WAR OF THE WORDS
Well, I assert that having a society devoid of leaders, whereby the "people" decide everything, is unobtainable. Human nature sinks the ship every time. You look at humans as highly evolved animals. With such a dry scientific way of determining societal needs/wants, you assume that people will conform to such a system. Not after they have tasted Capitalism. It would be like taking someone from being able to eat whatever they wanted and putting them on a spartan calorie restricted diet. They would adapt, but they would hate it! There is a large group of people who like democracy because even if it is imperfect it gives us what we want. Americans not about to lower their standard of living to support the poor disenfranchised masses. You say that America could vanish in a puff of smoke and it would be a good thing hardly noticed. I say that the typical pampered Western Capitalist would say the same about the Third World. Thus, both sides see that in the next "revolution" some casualties will ensue. Its just a perspective of who dies. Right now, the guys with the money are winning. (I know that it is unchristian...but it is human nature)
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-07-2004 10:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by contracycle, posted 09-07-2004 10:25 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by contracycle, posted 09-08-2004 5:34 AM Phat has not replied

Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 752 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 93 of 108 (140670)
09-07-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by contracycle
09-07-2004 5:28 AM


Re: Clash of the Worldviews
Thank you for your reply.
It has been, and it is.
Ah, good, you are not ignorant of history. So why on earth do you think America disappearing would do the world any good?
But Dawg, your patriotism blinds you to the truth: it is America that fights for money, that invades in the name of Mammon, and that is the same state you proclaim you would proudly serve. You are either a hypocrite or a fool.
America fights for freedom, capitalism, and democracy. Monetary prosperity is a natural product of that in free nations. Now in Iraq, did we recieve any monetary gain from freeing the people of Iraq? Of course not. But it is my hope that Iraq will eventually become prosperous as well, as a result of their free, democratic, capitalist society. There are lots of enemies to this kind of society because it is easier to gain power in a country full of poverty-stricken mal-contents.
Just because my arguments make sense does not make me a fool or hypocrit. In fact you are the one who is being foolish and hypocritical. If you truly believed what you were saying you would move to China or N. Korea, or Iran, or Syria. Instead you continue to enjoy the benefits of freedom, capitalism, and democracy, while condemning such things.
No, you are not. A peacelover does not argue for war - they argue for peace. You are a war-lover.
I'm a war-lover to the extent that war can provide peace and freedom. I recognize that the only way to maintain peace, freedom, and prosperity, is to protect it with a strong military. Its obvious to anyone who has studied history a little that this is the case.
That is exactly like the speech of any Imperialist. People must be conquered and subjefcted in the name of "freedom". Yet more hypocrisy.
When did I say people must be conquered and subjected? Sometimes it is necessary to conquer the tyrranical government that is subjecting people for the benefit of everyone.
Their personal delusions are irrelevant
And you think your delusions knocking freedom and capitalism that you dream up under no pressure enjoying peace at home in your free capitalist society in your chair before your personal computer are any more relevant?
whatever moralistic apologetics they offer for being agents of imperialism and occupying powers, the evil of their actions does not go away.
We are not being imperialist in the sense of aquiring territory. If we are being imperialist by spreading freedom and democracy, then I'm for it.
I say again, if American soldiers are the instruments of evil, why don't you go join a "terrorist" group and fight us?!?!?
Okay, so one guy is enslaving a hundred people, and he would rather them die than let them be free. Sometimes he kills a slave or two just because he enjoys it. You think it is "evil" to kill that one guy and let the rest govern themselves freely? I just don't understand how anyone can be so out of touch with reality.
Sigh... whatever. Have a good day enjoying your free society bought with the blood of "evil imperialsts". BTW where do you live? I assumed either America or England.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by contracycle, posted 09-07-2004 5:28 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by contracycle, posted 09-08-2004 5:57 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 108 (140851)
09-07-2004 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by MrHambre
08-31-2004 10:19 AM


quote:
According to Schraf's Paradox, The Bible is the literal word of God, because it says in the Bible that the Bible is the literal word of God.
Wow, I have a particular paradox named after me now?
Right on!
It's a good one, too.
I should get lots of citations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by MrHambre, posted 08-31-2004 10:19 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by MrHambre, posted 09-08-2004 1:09 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 95 of 108 (140852)
09-08-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by lfen
09-01-2004 11:44 AM


Re: Water the Poor
quote:
And true believers whether of an islamic, communist, racist, or whatever can do or sanction terrible things BUT that remains an extremist minority.
Many, many ordinary, non-extremeist, otherwise nice, normal Germans sanctioned terrible things in the 1930's and 1940's.
The extermination of 6 million people wouldn't have been possible without the sanction of ordinary people.
Large numbers of ordinary, non-extremeist people sanctioned the interrment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry during WW2.
Large numbers of normal, non-extremeist people sanctioned racism and slavery in our country for a very long time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by lfen, posted 09-01-2004 11:44 AM lfen has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 108 (140856)
09-08-2004 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Hangdawg13
09-06-2004 9:45 PM


Re: Clash of the Worldviews
quote:
You should talk to some Marines that have come back from Iraq. They know why they are there and they are glad to be there even though it is dangerous and uncomfortable.
...those wouldn't be the Marine recruiters you are talking to, would it, ir maybe people the recruiters put you in touch with?
There are plenty of soldiers serving in Iraq who don't know why they are there and are not at all glad to be there. Go see Farenheit 9/11.
Combine that with the Bush administration cutting combat pay and veterans' benefits and hospitalization, and you can see why a lot of them are bitter.
Speaking of movies, have you seen Three Kings? If so, what did you think of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-06-2004 9:45 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 108 (140863)
09-08-2004 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by lfen
09-04-2004 2:31 PM


Re: The Battle of Hastings
Ifen writes:
quote:
I am remembering the title of the book as: 1066 the Story of a Year, but not finding it so I'm misrembering it. Anyway, check out that year and the battles in England, especially the battle of Hastings. That was a time when the Kings stood with their armies and fought and died on the field of battle.
Not as I recall. It was unusual for William (or any king or war leader, for that matter) to charge into battle with his troops. He did so only after his first assault had failed. His forces suffered heavy casualties when Harold's army turned out to be stronger than expected. William's decision to join his troops on horseback was a maneuver born of need, not a protocol.
I know there have been many major battles in which kings and generals have fought alongside their troops, but it has never been the norm unless I am very much mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by lfen, posted 09-04-2004 2:31 PM lfen has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 98 of 108 (140870)
09-08-2004 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
09-07-2004 11:52 PM


Beats Lou Gehrig's Disease
quote:
Wow, I have a particular paradox named after me now?
If we could enforce the payment of royalties every time a fundie invoked your paradox, you could afford a summer cottage in the Tetons. Until then, console yourself with online immortality.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 09-08-2004 12:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 09-07-2004 11:52 PM nator has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 108 (140874)
09-08-2004 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by contracycle
09-06-2004 6:30 AM


Re: Water the Poor
contracyle writes:
quote:
Christianity is a religion of hate and violence - as in fact are ALL the religions of the book. And christians, as I remarked earlier, share one abiding consistent feature: murderous hypocrisy.
Wow! It isn't often than I run across someone more cynical about religion than I am.
I agree with the gist of your point, but I think you've grossly over-generalized. I don't think mainstream Christians (at least not those of today) can be called hateful and violent. Many of the Christians I know are very peaceful people who try to be non-judgemental of others. Some of them are opposed to the war in Iraq on Christian grounds. To characterize them as murderously hypocritical would be terribly unfair.
Of course, there is a large segment of Christianity that is exactly as you describe. I detest that group of Christians every bit as much as you do, but I try to remember (although I often forget, as you seem to have done here) to identify them such that I do not seem to condemn all Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by contracycle, posted 09-06-2004 6:30 AM contracycle has not replied

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 108 (140877)
09-08-2004 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by contracycle
09-07-2004 10:25 AM


Re: WAR OF THE WORDS
contracycle squirms:
quote:
I refuse to answer such a loaded question; its off topic anyway.
Actually, I think it's one of the best challenges I've seen Phatboy put forth. I can't see how the question "What type of a Utopian society do you envision?" can be called off-topic in a thread entitled 'What Is Your Worldview?'.
You've only partially answered the question. Marxism, as I understand it, is far more concerned with economics than religion. Yes, religion is anathema to it, but how is the free-market system, which is the real enemy of Marxism, derived from theism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by contracycle, posted 09-07-2004 10:25 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by contracycle, posted 09-08-2004 5:28 AM berberry has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 108 (140892)
09-08-2004 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by berberry
09-08-2004 1:41 AM


Re: WAR OF THE WORDS
quote:
You've only partially answered the question. Marxism, as I understand it, is far more concerned with economics than religion. Yes, religion is anathema to it, but how is the free-market system, which is the real enemy of Marxism, derived from theism?
1 The arrogation of private property, seen both in the gift of the world to Adam to own and to take dominion of, and in the 10 commandments injunction not to covet they neighbours ox.
2 The construction of normative heirarchies possessed of social authority not commensurate with the actual services performed in that role.
That is: the economic analysis that capitalism employs is not theistic in its nature, but does include theistic assumptions. Eliminating these theistic assumptions eliminates the bulk of the apparent logic of capitalism.
Atheist materialism is inherent to the communist analysis; in fact I go so far as to say it is the first non-theistic economic system yet proposed in human history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by berberry, posted 09-08-2004 1:41 AM berberry has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 108 (140894)
09-08-2004 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Phat
09-07-2004 11:37 AM


Re: WAR OF THE WORDS
quote:
Well, I assert that having a society devoid of leaders
Who proposed a system without leaders? Not Lenins statement I quoted, CONTROL your leaders... there must be leaders for them to be subordinated to the mass. So, what are you talking about?
quote:
Human nature sinks the ship every time.
I know, thats why Capitalism is doomed.
Therre are far too many erroneous presumptions in the rest of the post. Phatboy, I don't know what you are talking about: why do you interpret the proposition that people should be free from capitalist heirarchy and coercion as placing them on a spartan diet? I'm saying the capitalist diet isn't good enough and that we can have better - why do you think human nature would NOT want better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Phat, posted 09-07-2004 11:37 AM Phat has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 108 (140896)
09-08-2004 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Hangdawg13
09-07-2004 12:45 PM


Re: Clash of the Worldviews
quote:
So why on earth do you think America disappearing would do the world any good?
For exactly the same reason that the defeat of Fascist Germany made the world a better place.
quote:
America fights for freedom, capitalism, and democracy.
No - America fights for capitalism against freedom and democracy. That is why it conquored and occupied Iraq.
quote:
Monetary prosperity is a natural product of that in free nations.
So capitalist propagandists claim, but its rather falsified by the welth of for example Saudi Arabia, which is most certainly not free. Its a cheap-and-easy soundbite for those who want rationalisations.
quote:
I'm a war-lover to the extent that war can provide peace and freedom.
"Robbery, butchery, rape they misname empire: they make a wasteland and call it peace." - Tacitus
quote:
I recognize that the only way to maintain peace, freedom, and prosperity, is to protect it with a strong military. Its obvious to anyone who has studied history a little that this is the case.
Actually, I think history comprehensively demonstrates that war is in the service of elites, and is a large scale protection racket run by criminals for criminals.
quote:
When did I say people must be conquered and subjected? Sometimes it is necessary to conquer the tyrranical government that is subjecting people for the benefit of everyone.
And yet that is always an excuse for the subjugation of a people. That is, the "evil" of Saddam was nominally the cause, but the people of Iraq suffered as proxies for Saddam. Saddam is alive, but the people of Iraq are under the American jackboot. If that is were objective, America would now leave - but that is not Americas objective. Its oil.
quote:
And you think your delusions knocking freedom and capitalism that you dream up under no pressure enjoying peace at home in your free capitalist society in your chair before your personal computer are any more relevant?
Pay attention; I grew up amidst a revolution and my freinds and acquaintances were casualties and combatants; your privilieged and comfortable distance from the realities of war is what leads you to see it in such moralistic rather than pragmatic terms, as was pointed out above.
quote:
We are not being imperialist in the sense of aquiring territory. If we are being imperialist by spreading freedom and democracy, then I'm for it.
There is no evidence at all for America spreading democracy; there is a great deal of evidence for America being an imperialist power, namely the vast number of foreign military interventions it carries out. America has a track record for supporting dictatiors - like Saddam - as regional or economic allies. America is an enemy of democracy and freedom around the globe.
quote:
I say again, if American soldiers are the instruments of evil, why don't you go join a "terrorist" group and fight us?!?!?
I'm already a member of a group that is technically terroirist becuase it does not renounce violence in pursuit of its political objectives. My methodology is demonstration and mass movement; but I will support those who resist American imperialism.
quote:
Okay, so one guy is enslaving a hundred people, and he would rather them die than let them be free. Sometimes he kills a slave or two just because he enjoys it. You think it is "evil" to kill that one guy and let the rest govern themselves freely?
A) thats a stupid analogy becuase you don;t just kill the one guy - he's still alive remember, over 11000 Iraqis are dead
b) America has NEVER done such a thing and never will, its entirely against the grain of American foreign and economic policy
c) This just indicates again that you are not thinking, just emoting. You are resorting to an abst5ract princioplke instead of the reality of dropping bombs on urban areas, of national pride and resistance.
quote:
I just don't understand how anyone can be so out of touch with reality.
Ha ha ha - this after giving me a kiddies colouring book version of the occupation of Iraq. Lets look at reality, Dawg - Iraq is occupied, its people are not free, and its assets have been looted by the US. The US managed to spend ALL the money in the UN-oil for food oprogramme, but has only managed to spend 2% of the money voted by congress for reconstruction becuase of "instability". The occupation of Iraq is a ordinary, historically normal, conquest by an Imperial power.
As one commmentator at the RNC remarked, first they had the chorus girls singing the marine anthem, with its "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" and the very next speaker claimed "we are not an imperialist nation". It would be funny if this serious delusion were not so dangerous to the rest of us.
{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-08-2004 09:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Hangdawg13, posted 09-07-2004 12:45 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Phat, posted 09-08-2004 9:00 AM contracycle has replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 104 of 108 (140908)
09-08-2004 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by contracycle
09-08-2004 5:57 AM


Capitalist Pigs vs Commie Bureaucrats
At worst, Capitalism woos the world on their side by means of seduction. It is not a perfect system of government by any means, but it is not a worse alternative than Communism. When I talked about human nature, I mean't that communism looks good on paper and in theory as a fair way of helping the poor and disenfranchised masses, but in reality there are still ample opportunities for corrupt groups of leaders to come to power. I don't want any form of government that limits how much I can make or own for the good of what they claim to be fair and equitable.
contracycle writes:
I grew up amidst a revolution and my friends and acquaintances were casualties and combatants
Tell us more. Where did you grow up?
contracycle writes:
That is, the "evil" of Saddam was nominally the cause, but the people of Iraq suffered as proxies for Saddam. Saddam is alive, but the people of Iraq are under the American jackboot. If that is were objective, America would now leave - but that is not Americas objective. Its oil.
It is true that America wishes to set up a government with which we can trade. In some instances, we are protecting our way of life. We do not want to allow the resources of the world to fall into the hands of any system of government who is against our well being. They would not benevolantly feed the people with the money. They would use those resources against us. Yes, there is a struggle.We are far removed from being similar to Nazi Germany, however. Dubya is hardly Hitler. Do you really think that Marxist revolutionaries are so warm and loving for the benefit of all the people? They crave power as much as any Western politician. I respect your right to voice your opinion, however. I also respect your participation in writing your responses to this thread. We all have different World Views, and we all have the right to fully express them here. It is a way that we can, perhaps learn a bit about each other through our expressions.
contracycle writes:
There is no evidence at all for America spreading democracy
But at least we remove the governments that prevent democracy from occuring. People have the right to decide. I don't see the Soviet Union attempting to remake itself. I see a people who struggle with Capitalism yet who by and large prefer the changes that have been made in Russia in the last decade. The only ones whining are high level former officials who no longer make the decisions and who have lost their prestige.
contracycle writes:
I think history comprehensively demonstrates that war is in the service of elites, and is a large scale protection racket run by criminals for criminals.
If you are right, the elitists come in all forms of government. The criminals can be communists as well as capitalists. I see no difference. Do you? Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by contracycle, posted 09-08-2004 5:57 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by contracycle, posted 09-08-2004 9:50 AM Phat has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 108 (140915)
09-08-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Phat
09-08-2004 9:00 AM


Re: Capitalist Pigs vs Commie Bureaucrats
quote:
At worst, Capitalism woos the world on their side by means of seduction.
No, it is by violent coercion - such as for example the "domino" theory that lead to the US sending troops into anywhere that tried to go commie. Just recently, Iraq has been proclaimed a success because US intervention is said to be more plausible, the threat is real, and so other states can be more effectively coerced. Furthermore, as we see in the case of developing countries, capitalism insists on interfering in domestic economies and imposing conditions on pain of witheld trade.
quote:
It is not a perfect system of government by any means, but it is not a worse alternative than Communism.
It is a substantially worse system than communism, resting as it does on the violent coercion of the populace by the state.
quote:
When I talked about human nature, I mean't that communism looks good on paper and in theory as a fair way of helping the poor and disenfranchised masses, but in reality there are still ample opportunities for corrupt groups of leaders to come to power.
On what basis? Who are these beureacrats in a state-less society? How does "corruption" have meaning if every producer owns and controls their own production? How can power be exercised in the absence of a stanbding body of armed men?
Once again I ask: what are you talking about?
quote:
Tell us more. Where did you grow up?
South Africa
quote:
It is true that America wishes to set up a government with which we can trade. In some instances, we are protecting our way of life.
Not just with which you can trade, but one which has low wages so that American capital can make rich profits. That is: America actively reduces the wellbeing of people in other countries in order to more efficiently extract (that is, steal) the wealth created by those people. And you cannot be said to be protecting your way of life when in large part your wars are against enemies that massively weaker than you. Cuba is an excellent case in point.
quote:
We are far removed from being similar to Nazi Germany, however.
In my opinion, America is only a hair removed from being like Nazi Germany, and if Bush wins again will be confirmed on that road.
quote:
But at least we remove the governments that prevent democracy from occuring.
No you do not. General Musharraf took power in Pakistan by coup, and the US welcomes him as an ally. Saddam suppressed democracy and gassed his own people, yet remained a friendly American ally, described by Rumsfeld in the 80's as "a man we can do buisiness with". America is implicated in supporting terrorism in Latin America and with intervening in national politics there - Oliver North ring any bells? America has even cut a deal with Uzbekistan, whose leader is reportedly prone to boiling people alive. America is, as I said beforte, an enemy of freedom of worldwide. To the extent that America gains power, the world is less free. If America disapeared tomorrow, the world would be more free than it is today.
quote:
But at least we remove the governments that prevent democracy from occuring. People have the right to decide. I don't see the Soviet Union attempting to remake itself. I see a people who struggle with Capitalism yet who by and large prefer the changes that have been made in Russia in the last decade. The only ones whining are high level former officials who no longer make the decisions and who have lost their prestige.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, I'm afraid to say. What has the state-Capitalist USSR got do with my argument? Secondly, there have been large demonstrations by people who are near starvation point in Russia, and the "bandit capitalism" over there is not widely popular. Thirdly, this "new" Russia with financial, as opposed state, capitalism is indeed trying to resurrect its empire, which is exaftly the logic behind the terrible war in Chechnya. Fourth, all that changed is that the people living off the backs of the people have different names, but the rerlaitonship is the same: capitalism is always coercieve, always theft, and always leaves the many in poverty.
quote:
If you are right, the elitists come in all forms of government.
Thats why I advocate a system that is NON GOVERNMENT, but instead freedom and independance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Phat, posted 09-08-2004 9:00 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-08-2004 10:42 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 107 by MrHambre, posted 09-08-2004 11:20 AM contracycle has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024