West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Ant on November 26, 2006, 06:52:15 PM
-
It's long, but if you want to kill some time... an entertaining read.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,372,n,n
I'm glad to see more people vocally criticizing religion.
-
I have read most of this but my response that religion is to blame is a red herring personally I do not follow a particular faith but I do believe in god but nontheless my point is who cares whether god exists or not? the idea that religion is to blame for all of the ills in the world is nonsense. Ultimately the power games are played by the elites in society, sure religion is used to steer this but religion is being manipulated to steer this message. When the elites wanted to destroy Iraq and create a partitioned state within a state there they disseminated the message to the evangelical christians that George Bush and Tony Blair and all these other scum bags were doing gods work, now the evangelicals are a symptomn of what is going on sure but they are not the cause.
It makes constant reference to muslims and besides the point that this man tries to imply that the intelligence services were powerless to stop these evil hijackers from carrying out their evil jihad which is a complete fraud.....but anyway that is me disgressing the point is these extremist muslims are placed into power by the CIA they instigate coups, assasinate people, carry out car bombings, and do whatever it takes to dethrone governments (this is illustrated best in an almost boastful article in the new york time in 2003 i think, about how they setup Mosadeq though I will have to find out what the article is called because I have forgotten). who don't toe the line and in their place comes the extreme element. Then the elites using the media as their a outlet can point the finger at these people some time down the line and cry oh look these are muslim extremists and must be stopped and the cycle continues. Which also then allows for people to point the finger at religion and say well the muslims are trying to kill us because of their jihad.
It's like the palestinian Israel situation, the first reported suicide bomber did not occur until after the intafada of 1997 but of course what also occured at this time was the inception of a new administration and a message of carte blanche to the israelis. So in turn jewish settlements increased exponentially, more curfews were imposed on the palestinians, more unarmed people were shot, unemployment rocketed, water supplies became poisonous to drink food supplies became scarcer and so some palestinians became that enraged and consumed with hate that they did the unthinkable and became suicide bombers, Again though this sick myth is being meddled that no of course their hopeless plight would not drive them to commit suicide and also to kill the people who they see as being responsible for their suffering. It's because their evil religions made them do it. someone does not do something that extreme because of their religion, when they are faced with such tyranny that is their driving force.
Again I am reading disinfo, when I read this he talks about the hijackers talking about their intentions in the mosques but as you may or may not know the BBC and others have reported that some of the hijackers are alive, so we do not actually know who was on the plane and who was not but that is a side issue. The reason I mention 911 is for the same reason he uses it and that is to reason why he thinks that religion is the beast. I should add that I have no problem with athiests and someone should not be looked down upon if they are athiest certainly not. However like I said ultimately it's a red herring religion did not force a police state upon Britain, religion is not the driving force behind this drive in Britain to get everyones DNA, now even and as reported by the Independent DNA testing familiies of the guilty party to, religion did not abolish the bill of rights, religion did not form the 3 unions of the world, religion did not destroy our civil liberties, religion did not turn Britain into a police state. Plus in a sense religious voices havent always been a bad thing. they were the main dissenters to Stalin that is why stalin could not destroy the church directly instead he had to corrupt the system from the inside by having agents train to be preists and work from the inside.
Ultimately this man chooses to ignore the core of this and that is the elites in society are driving the way of thinking they are the ones conditioning populations into accepting and normalising every type of intrusion violation of civil rights and monitoring you could ever dream of. Therefore I just see this type of debate as in fighting, as divisive and ultimately pointless when it's just part of a much bigger picture.
-
And you choose to believe you know it all.
-
Why are atheists so stupid? There whole system of beliefs depends on logic, fact, evidence and what not yet they actually think it’s the religion and the religious people that cause all this chaos. Farmers didn't pick up arms in the crusades because they wanted to defend Jesus or find the Holy Grail. Sure you had an uneducated bumpkin or two actually thinking that, but if you really look at it you'd see they had no choice. It was join up or die. What do you think would happen to a serf if he refused what his king told him? The whole thing was a political play about land and war and had nothing to do with God. The church had long gotten rid of God by that time. You see in the feudal times a kings first born son would be king, but the king had more than one son so what happened to these kids? Well since they couldn't be king they had to find another institution of respect to join and be a prominent member, and that institution was the Roman Catholic Church. They'd become cardinals and bishops and have no real interest in the religion or what it meant. Eventually they would be on the Papal council and conduct business like they would if they had been king.
Since we line in a capitalist democracy today you don't need sons of kings just business man politicians who tell the uneducated common folk what they want to hear and trick them into following them. The masses get fooled no matter where you go. The communists did it very well and they didn't use God at all. Che Guevara used the ideals of communism and the horrors of oppression to trick his people into committing mass murders. Mao did the same but added in economic growth to get entire towns of people to pitch in their crops and make it seem like they were producing three times what they were, but after half got taxed from each town there was no food left to feed the people and they died of starvation.
When God isn't there a substitute, and no matter what the substitute is the reason for it is the same everywhere; to fight oppression or the fear of oppression. No one was calling the Japanese Kamikaze pilots Shinto extremists when they were suicide bombing US naval ships. They were simply doing what they felt they had to in a time of war. 40 virgins in heaven may be the easiest way to get young men to bomb themselves in the Middle East today but let’s get it straight; they are bombing themselves because someone came up with the idea that it would be an effective way to attack. And what are they attacking, the oppressor, and in their mind the oppressor came when Israel and the western world came in and attacked, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that the guy that came up with the idea to suicide bomb the streets never once thought about doing it himself. What he needed was impressionable youth to brainwash and since Islam was already there he used it to his advantage and the model was followed by all the other rebel leaders. If Islam wasn't there they'd find another way to brainwash. In the 50+ years of oppression they'd figure out away to get the youth and the uneducated to do what they wanted them to do. The bombers would do it for something. They'd do it for their children and children's children. They'd do it for the country. For the people. For the sake of what is fair. You may think that you can't get atheists to kill themselves but you will find them. Atheists commit suicide too. Atheists fight wars too. You just have to find that small percentage that want to do both, and it's a very small percentage. Take the numbers of Muslims in the Middle East that have blown themselves up and compare that with the number that haven't. You are looking at a point of a percent and if you think that you couldn’t find that point of a percent in an atheist middle east then you are an idiot.
-
Well I don't pretend to have a great understanding of religion but cerainly religion is not to blame I used to think so a kid but then I realised that where religion is used, it's being manipulated.
-
Religious fanaticism is one of the true evils in this world.
-
Well I don't pretend to have a great understanding of religion but cerainly religion is not to blame I used to think so a kid but then I realised that where religion is used, it's being manipulated.
You don't "have a great understanding of religion" but your "certain" religion is not to blame?
I'd say this is a debatable subject. I lean towards religion bearing some responsibility for our problems. Without religion there wouldn't be al-queda. Nor would GWB be in the white house.
If religion didn't exist politicians could talk more candidly about their ideas.... instead of having to appease an irrational majority.
Without religion there would be no Hitler. Maybe this is one-sided. But it's a bit ridiculous to be "certain" religion is not to blame... when you admittedly don't "understand" much about religion.
--
Of course... as Sam Harris rightly points out. Even if you can prove religion has a positive impact on the world (which it may not) that doesn't mean religion is real.
-
Why are atheists so stupid? There whole system of beliefs depends on logic, fact, evidence and what not yet they actually think it’s the religion and the religious people that cause all this chaos. Farmers didn't pick up arms in the crusades because they wanted to defend Jesus or find the Holy Grail. Sure you had an uneducated bumpkin or two actually thinking that, but if you really look at it you'd see they had no choice. It was join up or die. What do you think would happen to a serf if he refused what his king told him? The whole thing was a political play about land and war and had nothing to do with God. The church had long gotten rid of God by that time. You see in the feudal times a kings first born son would be king, but the king had more than one son so what happened to these kids? Well since they couldn't be king they had to find another institution of respect to join and be a prominent member, and that institution was the Roman Catholic Church. They'd become cardinals and bishops and have no real interest in the religion or what it meant. Eventually they would be on the Papal council and conduct business like they would if they had been king.
Since we line in a capitalist democracy today you don't need sons of kings just business man politicians who tell the uneducated common folk what they want to hear and trick them into following them. The masses get fooled no matter where you go. The communists did it very well and they didn't use God at all. Che Guevara used the ideals of communism and the horrors of oppression to trick his people into committing mass murders. Mao did the same but added in economic growth to get entire towns of people to pitch in their crops and make it seem like they were producing three times what they were, but after half got taxed from each town there was no food left to feed the people and they died of starvation.
When God isn't there a substitute, and no matter what the substitute is the reason for it is the same everywhere; to fight oppression or the fear of oppression. No one was calling the Japanese Kamikaze pilots Shinto extremists when they were suicide bombing US naval ships. They were simply doing what they felt they had to in a time of war. 40 virgins in heaven may be the easiest way to get young men to bomb themselves in the Middle East today but let’s get it straight; they are bombing themselves because someone came up with the idea that it would be an effective way to attack. And what are they attacking, the oppressor, and in their mind the oppressor came when Israel and the western world came in and attacked, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that the guy that came up with the idea to suicide bomb the streets never once thought about doing it himself. What he needed was impressionable youth to brainwash and since Islam was already there he used it to his advantage and the model was followed by all the other rebel leaders. If Islam wasn't there they'd find another way to brainwash. In the 50+ years of oppression they'd figure out away to get the youth and the uneducated to do what they wanted them to do. The bombers would do it for something. They'd do it for their children and children's children. They'd do it for the country. For the people. For the sake of what is fair. You may think that you can't get atheists to kill themselves but you will find them. Atheists commit suicide too. Atheists fight wars too. You just have to find that small percentage that want to do both, and it's a very small percentage. Take the numbers of Muslims in the Middle East that have blown themselves up and compare that with the number that haven't. You are looking at a point of a percent and if you think that you couldn’t find that point of a percent in an atheist middle east then you are an idiot.
Arguments about the value of religion do nothing to prove religions validity.
Even if religion is good for society... it doesn't mean its real. And if we don't tolerate a belief in witches... then why do we tolerate beliefs in a false god?
If nothing else... our belief in a false reality distorts our ability to have reasoned discussions. People have enough problems reasoning well. They don't need one more thing messing up their ability to think clearly.
-
Why are atheists so stupid? There whole system of beliefs depends on logic, fact, evidence and what not yet they actually think it’s the religion and the religious people that cause all this chaos. Farmers didn't pick up arms in the crusades because they wanted to defend Jesus or find the Holy Grail. Sure you had an uneducated bumpkin or two actually thinking that, but if you really look at it you'd see they had no choice. It was join up or die. What do you think would happen to a serf if he refused what his king told him? The whole thing was a political play about land and war and had nothing to do with God. The church had long gotten rid of God by that time. You see in the feudal times a kings first born son would be king, but the king had more than one son so what happened to these kids? Well since they couldn't be king they had to find another institution of respect to join and be a prominent member, and that institution was the Roman Catholic Church. They'd become cardinals and bishops and have no real interest in the religion or what it meant. Eventually they would be on the Papal council and conduct business like they would if they had been king.
Since we line in a capitalist democracy today you don't need sons of kings just business man politicians who tell the uneducated common folk what they want to hear and trick them into following them. The masses get fooled no matter where you go. The communists did it very well and they didn't use God at all. Che Guevara used the ideals of communism and the horrors of oppression to trick his people into committing mass murders. Mao did the same but added in economic growth to get entire towns of people to pitch in their crops and make it seem like they were producing three times what they were, but after half got taxed from each town there was no food left to feed the people and they died of starvation.
When God isn't there a substitute, and no matter what the substitute is the reason for it is the same everywhere; to fight oppression or the fear of oppression. No one was calling the Japanese Kamikaze pilots Shinto extremists when they were suicide bombing US naval ships. They were simply doing what they felt they had to in a time of war. 40 virgins in heaven may be the easiest way to get young men to bomb themselves in the Middle East today but let’s get it straight; they are bombing themselves because someone came up with the idea that it would be an effective way to attack. And what are they attacking, the oppressor, and in their mind the oppressor came when Israel and the western world came in and attacked, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that the guy that came up with the idea to suicide bomb the streets never once thought about doing it himself. What he needed was impressionable youth to brainwash and since Islam was already there he used it to his advantage and the model was followed by all the other rebel leaders. If Islam wasn't there they'd find another way to brainwash. In the 50+ years of oppression they'd figure out away to get the youth and the uneducated to do what they wanted them to do. The bombers would do it for something. They'd do it for their children and children's children. They'd do it for the country. For the people. For the sake of what is fair. You may think that you can't get atheists to kill themselves but you will find them. Atheists commit suicide too. Atheists fight wars too. You just have to find that small percentage that want to do both, and it's a very small percentage. Take the numbers of Muslims in the Middle East that have blown themselves up and compare that with the number that haven't. You are looking at a point of a percent and if you think that you couldn’t find that point of a percent in an atheist middle east then you are an idiot.
Arguments about the value of religion do nothing to prove religions validity.
Even if religion is good for society... it doesn't mean its real. And if we don't tolerate a belief in witches... then why do we tolerate beliefs in a false god?
If nothing else... our belief in a false reality distorts our ability to have reasoned discussions. People have enough problems reasoning well. They don't need one more thing messing up their ability to think clearly.
Your response has nothing to do with my post. I never tried to show religion was real. I never said pagan religions shouldn't be tolerated. I always saw most of the bible as analogy anyway. I'm still a Christian. All the jewish bible stuff is most likely mythology, or at the very least a message through symbols. Also keep in mind that it is very debatable whether many Greeks even believed in their myths as fact. Much of what I read about it makes it seem like people knew what it was and what it's purpose was and it wasn't to believe in Gods. Now when the Romans took it they used it to oppress people, but I'm not so sure about the Greeks. As for Jesus he is based on historical accounts. Whether they are fabricated is up to to you, but they come from the same types of sources that tell us what Julius Caesar did, or how many Spartans beat how many Persians.
-
Our historical knowledge of Jesus is not at all similiar to our historical understanding of Caesar. This is very obviously true. Historians can openly debate the validity of our understand of Caesar, but they cannot do the same with Jesus. If they could you wouldn't believe as you do. As any well-versed historian will show you the history of jesus as portrayed in the bible is highly suspect.
And your post was about the about the good religion does for the world. You call atheists "stupid." But aren't you "stupid" if you believe in something that obviously isn't true?
There are people who are deeply dependent on religion to live happily. These people will never change their minds. But anyone that is open minded can easily learn it isn't real. Just do a little research. Don't be so quick to call people dumb that know more than you. Before you criticize anyone you have to show they are wrong. It makes no sense when you call people "stupid" that see more clearly than you.
-
^He was just catching feelings, don't be so mean to him.
-
Our historical knowledge of Jesus is not at all similiar to our historical understanding of Caesar. This is very obviously true. Historians can openly debate the validity of our understand of Caesar, but they cannot do the same with Jesus. If they could you wouldn't believe as you do. As any well-versed historian will show you the history of jesus as portrayed in the bible is highly suspect.
And your post was about the about the good religion does for the world. You call atheists "stupid." But aren't you "stupid" if you believe in something that obviously isn't true?
There are people who are deeply dependent on religion to live happily. These people will never change their minds. But anyone that is open minded can easily learn it isn't real. Just do a little research. Don't be so quick to call people dumb that know more than you. Before you criticize anyone you have to show they are wrong. It makes no sense when you call people "stupid" that see more clearly than you.
I called you stupid because you clearly made up what wasn't there. There was nothing in my post about the good that religion does for the world. Read it again. Maybe you aren't stupid. Maybe you're just trying to be an asshole. Either way there is no merit in what you said. I called them stupid for not being able to see what they pride themselves on seeing; outside the box. It's like too many are so mad over the years for living in a world where they are pushed into believing in a God that they just wanto blame the religion and refuse to see when the same terrible things happen in non-religious countries or for non-religios reasons. When Muslims blow themselves up it's Islam's fault, but when the Viet Minh did it the same people just ignore it because they don't have an answer they want to present to the masses.
Anyone with an open mind can understand why it may not be real. it takes a closed mind to just assert it isn't. Prove to me that there is no God or spiritual force. I'm not telling you there is and I'm not trying to prove it. You on the other hand are so sure.
Caesar was a more extreme case since so much was written about him from so many sources. But what about Socrates? Most of the source info we have on him come from stories written by Plato, yet he isn't so suspect and it all has to do with the lack of anything supernatural. If one line in Plato's writing said something about Socrates flying or healing hte sick he'd be dismissed by atheists as fiction. If Caesar was said to have taken on an army of thousands alone with a flaming sword it'd be the same for him. If David Blaine of Chris Angel were around 2000 years ago and people wrote about what they did you'd think they were made up people. I'm not saying Jesus existed on Earth 2000 years ago. I can never know for sure. I'm saying you can never know for sure either.
-
Lol oh dear you just highlighted your ignorance in one sentence when I said I do not pretend to have a great understanding I simply meant I am no expert but I understand them well enough to comment whereas you just said "without religion there would be no al queda" lol excuse me? the CIA created Al Queda, the CIA used Al Queda in the Kosovo conflict and your telling me without religion there would be no Al Queda ::)
-
Lol oh dear you just highlighted your ignorance in one sentence when I said I do not pretend to have a great understanding I simply meant I am no expert but I understand them well enough to comment whereas you just said "without religion there would be no al queda" lol excuse me? the CIA created Al Queda, the CIA used Al Queda in the Kosovo conflict and your telling me without religion there would be no Al Queda ::)
please explain how al-queda can exist without the existence of religion?
-
You said that Al Queda could not exist without religion, it was created artifically by the CIA, it's been used several times by the CIA it was used in recent wars. and your asking me how it could exist if it wasnt for religion :o. It exists because of the west! Type in Al Queda used in Kosovo congressional reports, or type in Osmagate, though wait.....I can't use the second one because that professor is lying despite citing the congessional report itself, so yeah find the congressional report itself.
-
You said that Al Queda could not exist without religion, it was created artifically by the CIA, it's been used several times by the CIA it was used in recent wars. and your asking me how it could exist if it wasnt for religion :o. It exists because of the west! Type in Al Queda used in Kosovo congressional reports, or type in Osmagate, though wait.....I can't use the second one because that professor is lying despite citing the congessional report itself, so yeah find the congressional report itself.
So you still don't really understand religion, but you know al-queda could exist without it? CIA ownership of al-queda (a huge assumption) still doesn't prove that al-queda could exist without religion. I'm not even going to argue with you about that. But let's assume you're right and al-queda is a pet project of the CIA. They still needed religion to create such an organization.
Again... you don't want to be considered an extremist. But there aren't very many people in the world that would dare suggest al-queda isn't dependent on religion for its existence. What would be there motivation without religion?
It's unbelievable that you are even making this argument. And this is just one example there are many more terrorist organizations that are motivated by religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism
You need to settle down and really re-assess your worldview. You admittedly know little about religion, but you're again claiming ultimate truth. Do you ever consider the possibility ur wrong on anything?
Compare my position where I "lean towards religion bearing some responsibility for our problems." To your position where you are 100% sure that al-queda could exist without religion and it is artificially created by the CIA.
Do you ever way your chance of being wrong on anything? I like to consider probabilities when I make assumptions. With you everything is apparently 100% certainties. But an intelligent person knows, there are few things certain in the world. And the things you strongly believe in are far from certain. Are some of them "probable?" Sure. But you go off the deep end on shit and believe you know it all. It's annoying.
-
It is fact that the CIA created Al Queda that is not an assumption therefore your reply is baseless, Unless you are going to deny reality by the way I never said that religion did not play a part in war again you are miscontruong or disorting my words I acknowledged that religion did play a part in war but it was when that religion was being manipulated, indeed if you read the bible there are countless messages about fighting tyranny. The same as the underlying cause of the palestinians fight with the israelis is not because of religion but because of their fight for survival now again you are never going to accept that because think tanks are pushing this idea that things like complete tyranny oppression and desperation are not driving them to commit such acts, instead it is their religion. Now this is what I don't understand although I disagree with your opinion on most things and putting the al queda mistake aside you seem like a pretty smart person so how can you honestly tell me that the palestinian cause is not driven by their oppression and the total abandonment by the world?
The other thing I would say is that you should be free to criticise religion as much as you damn well like and any religion zealots who have a problem with this should be shown the middle finger my point is simply that blaming religion for the worlds ills ignores all of the power games which the elite are playing. After all the main motivation for wars has been power, look at Afghanistan, look at balkanisation, Iraq, in fact this whole idea of axis of evil is built on power, besides North Korea who I guess you could genuinely argue are evil but that is why they will never be touched because they posess such an arsenal of weapons and troops. Also why is it that you will dismiss an article which isnt itself mainstream and yet cites mainstream sources and yet you just used wikpedia which can literally be wrote by anyone? which is why I use it as little as possible because nothing is referenced so using that as a means of proving a point is very dodgy, I am not saying that particular hyperlinks contents are wrong but wikpedia is not doubt litttered with traps.
-
It is fact that the CIA created Al Queda that is not an assumption therefore your reply is baseless, Unless you are going to deny reality by the way I never said that religion did not play a part in war again you are miscontruong or disorting my words I acknowledged that religion did play a part in war but it was when that religion was being manipulated,
You can't manipulate that which does not exist.
indeed if you read the bible there are countless messages about fighting tyranny. The same as the underlying cause of the palestinians fight with the israelis is not because of religion but because of their fight for survival now again you are never going to accept that because think tanks are pushing this idea that things like complete tyranny oppression and desperation are not driving them to commit such acts, instead it is their religion. Now this is what I don't understand although I disagree with your opinion on most things and putting the al queda mistake aside you seem like a pretty smart person so how can you honestly tell me that the palestinian cause is not driven by their oppression and the total abandonment by the world?
So now you understand religion? I never said anything about palenstine. The problem is you take statements I make and apply them as you desire to prove a point. But I never said everything would be all well and good. Or every conflict is the fault of religion. I said a) religion does not exist b) certain atrocities probably would not existed without religion. Not EVERY atrocity. But I clearly said this is also a personal opinion. It's another topic to debate the validity of my opinion.
But what you said is clearly wrong. Al-queda would not exist without religion, regardless of if it was created by the CIA. Whoever created al-queda needed religion to form the organization. Religion is the foundation of their ideology. You take away the foundation of your house and your house will no longer exist. You take away religion and al-queda could never be. Perhaps you could argue many other bad things would happen without religion. But you can't seriously tell me that al-queda and most other religious terrorist organizations would exist.
The other thing I would say is that you should be free to criticise religion as much as you damn well like and any religion zealots who have a problem with this should be shown the middle finger my point is simply that blaming religion for the worlds ills ignores all of the power games which the elite are playing. After all the main motivation for wars has been power, look at Afghanistan, look at balkanisation, Iraq, in fact this whole idea of axis of evil is built on power, besides North Korea who I guess you could genuinely argue are evil but that is why they will never be touched because they posess such an arsenal of weapons and troops. Also why is it that you will dismiss an article which isnt itself mainstream and yet cites mainstream sources and yet you just used wikpedia which can literally be wrote by anyone?
I cite wikipedia because its a readily available resource with a well-regarded system for relaying facts. I didn't cite wikipedia for their opinion aethism. I used it to show you a list of religious terrorist organizations. This proper usage of an encyclopedic reference.
This is much different than cite obscure academics just because they have a Ph. D!
which is why I use it as little as possible because nothing is referenced so using that as a means of proving a point is very dodgy, I am not saying that particular hyperlinks contents are wrong but wikpedia is not doubt litttered with traps.
Wikipedia is no worse than any encyclopedia. It's arguably better than most. But your confusion is with the proper usage of sources. Using wikipedia to show a list of terrorist organizations, or a general description of an ideology is not the same as citing random "opinions" from obscure sources.
Here's a recent article on wikipedia's accuracy btw:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html
-
Lol Al Queda was created to fight the soviet union when the soviet union occupied Afghanistan, their driving force was to fight an occupation, invaders had swept to their lands that is why they were able to be formed. As for whether some atrocities are caused as a result of religion of course, my point was and is though that the words and ideas have been twisted, take for instance the bible there is nothing about love thy enemy and yet every church I walk past now I see this message, or take for instance Israel God supposedly punsihed the jews and took Israel off them, that is what the bible tells I mean and yet you have christian evangelicals believing with all their heart and soul that in order for the rapture to occur they must rebuild the temple in Jerusalem next to the islamic holy temple. This is what I mean about how religious messages have been hijacked, as least that is how I feel about it and the point I was making about wikpedia is literally anyone can write it, then literally anyone can change that information also. I believe, though I might be wrong, that the encyclopedia is created by a team of researchers, who have a high degree of expertise. Again though watch
America From Freedom To Facism before you continue this tunnel vision view of being a "realist" it might snap you out of such an apathetic stance.
-
When you in a really small minority you shouldn't be so arrogant about your ideas.
How can religion be manipulated or hijacked if it doesn't exist?
Eventually I'll watch your film... I quickly watched the trailer and was thus far unimpressed. But the whole thing is free on Google Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=america+freedom+to+facism+duration%3Along
There now you can share it with the world and spread your gospel.
Anyways.. I'm curious how old are you? It's amazing that someone like yourself can know so much, but communicate so poorly. Usually the intelligent people speak coherently. Luckily I'm not arrogant enough to believe I can see so clearly. The world is filled with certainties that are really assumptions. Do you know how many people walk around "knowing" things that just aren't so. What makes you so different?
-
"now i can share it with the world and spread the gospel" haha lots of people have seen that film/documentary in fact it has been in the top ten before. If you actually read what I said, I said at least that is what I think, personally I am not a big fan of religion but do think it is used as a scapegoat a lot. Of course people have killed othrs in the name of religion. However there is nothing wrong with someone having a faith a lot of religious people I have spoke to said it is as much a faith as anything else and who is anyone else to say well that is wrong. If elites didn't exist there would not be ransacking of economies, if elites did not exist hundreds of millions of of people would not live in an absolute poverty as a result, massive wars would not be waged, populations would not be enslaved, so what really is your point? Ohh I get it elites don't really exist, like the CFR didn't really exist, like the bilderbergs didn't really exist and anyone who said differently was a conspiracy theorist. Anyways watch the film and then I look forward to you remarking on how nuts the film is and the "small minority" of people that would actually believe it.
-
If elites didn't exist there would not be ransacking of economies, if elites did not exist hundreds of millions of of people would not live in an absolute poverty as a result, massive wars would not be waged, populations would not be enslaved, so what really is your point? Ohh I get it elites don't really exist, like the CFR didn't really exist, like the bilderbergs didn't really exist and anyone who said differently was a conspiracy theorist. Anyways watch the film and then I look forward to you remarking on how nuts the film is and the "small minority" of people that would actually believe it.
The analogy you tried to make is inappropriate.
"Elites" is not well defined. Religion is defined. So we can't even argue your point because you're using a very vague idea to form you analogy.
Secondly there is another problem with your ideology. "Elites" and "religion" are not comparable concepts. For one, religion is a speculative idea while the existence of "elites" are an unavoidable part of life. We can't all be equal... anyone that is more intelligent, more accomplished, more anything will inevitably become an "elite."
But religion is much different. It's an avoidable idea. It's purely speculative, and since it's not real it could potentially cease to exist (or at least become a marginalized idea much like a belief in witches is marginalized). But you can't end humanity's tendency to stratify. Show me a society where everyone is the same and I'll concede this point.
Do you understand?
-
I can never say for definite that God does not exist and nor can anyone much the same as anyone else can say there is undeniable truth god exists. The point about elites is true they have always existed but they are defined, or at least true elites are. The prime american example would be take a look at who is a CFR member or a regular bildaberg member, elsewhere the EU, Club of Rome the federal reserve for instance could be scrapped and there is still the executive order from Kennedy to begin this process, which proves it could be, As far as the European Union is concerned countries could pull out of the European Union but no the premier players in each respective government embrace these bodies. I take your point that yes there will always be elites but their power could feasibly be drastically reduced. Now as far as religion is concerned.... you can not deny that religion has sometimes been an obstacle to regimes also, it's one of these debates which has no definitive answers because I could cite the palestinians fight as being about oppression and just as legitimately you could cite the Israelis determination to reclaim the lands as a religious one. I guess this is the problem with discussing anything related to religion a lot of is belief, the point I was making and still do make is there have been a lot of positive messages used in scriptures. It's one of these issues that can make your head spin because there are so many valid points which can be made, however no there should not be controlling of religion. There is enough control of society already and it's a very dangerous road to head down, there is nothing righteous about this call for one religion either, something I have heard lots of times before, not that I am implying you are referring to an idea like that of course.
-
If you want to "impose" your ideas on society - which you do. Then you need "elites." Altho I'm still not sure what you mean by the word. How do policies get passed, and governments managed without their existence.
If you took every "elite" and shot them tomorrow the world would be a very confused place. But maybe I'm wrong. I shouldn't comment that much when I'm not sure if we're even using the word in the same manner.
For example...
Is a business owner elite?
Is an academic elite?
If anyone with a net worth greater than 10 million elite?
Are all politicians elite?
Is anyone with an above average IQ elite?
Is anyone attending harvard elite?
Are religious leaders elite? Is the catholic pope?
Here is the actual definition by MW
Elite a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence.
By that definition all of the above are "elites."
---
Again, there is a very significant difference between the existence of "elites" and "religion." That being, you can't eliminate "elites" but you can eliminate "religion." This should be extremely obvious.
Also, your generalization of "elites" was inappropriate. This is obvious when you consider your own desire to be an "elite." You want to impose your own ideology on the world. This is another contradiction in your thinking. You essentially are supporting elitism. You want to be an elite and marginalize all other elites that don't share your same worldview.
But ironically you think yourself a libertarian. Specifically you said you are for the "protection of liberty," but this is not true. You support increasing freedoms for people you like, and decreasing freedoms for people you dislike. This is not libertarian thinking. This is why I say your thinking is littered with contradictions and assumptions.
To be consistent you have to make a choice:
1) Do you support the libertarian ideal of maximizing freedom?
2) Do you want to limit the freedom of people you dislike by restricting the right of "elites" to act as they please?
Of course choosing the latter makes no sense. This is because only elites can restrict the freedom of other elites. So if you choose option 2 you are essentially supporting totalitarianism. i.e. you want elites that feel the same as you do to have control...
The only consistent idea is to support the freedom of all types of elites, and non-elites to act freely. Now if you want to break this rule for your idea of supporting a "greater good" than freedom, that's fine. But you have to realize then that you are no longer supporting the true protection of liberty. Your supporting the belief that it's wise to sacrifices some freedoms for the "greater good."
-
You just engaged in double think right there when trying to express that I am for less freedom of elites.....I am not for the complete centralisation and control over nation states by a group of unelected figures,,, i can see how that makes me anti liberty, I get it so when I am against total control I am an extremist its all becoming very clear to me.
Also when I said elite I meant the global elite, those people are intent on creating a one world centralised government where nationality nation state and local government are superfluous...again it's all becoming so clear to me now to be against this is extremist, that's not a dangerous world at all is it, I don't what I was thinking it's all wonderful, from now on I should suport this whole heartedly.
I understand now that the real problem of the soviet union was not the totalitarianism but it was those that opposed it, fucking criminals, and you can hardly blame the chinese government it's the people fighting it they are the enemy of freedom, they say they want freedom and yet they are against totalitarianism, why don't they embrace their freedom!
Now I have seen the light, thankyou so much there is no point in replying to any further posts from yourself because it all makes sense now, my heartfelt gratitude to you. Your logic might seem crazy to every person with an iota of sense but no not me i fully support what you are saying. There was me thinking that their driving philosophy is to see themselves as master and the citizen as the slave who has no inalieable rights and any rights they are given should be seen as a privilege from the high and mighty. This is illustrated in plain view by Leo Strauss for once but hey who gives a shit, if you are against this then you can't want liberty.
-
You need to stop arguing with so much emotion. The concept of liberty is amoral. Your emotional complaints about poor people in china bear no relation to this discussion.
Additionally, I don't appreciate the sarcasm because it makes it difficult to respond. Your posts, as always, are vaguely worded rants. I have to interpret your position, and then you'll shift it to counter. It's dishonest to debate in this manner. I don't think you do it to argue unfairly. I just think dislike arguing logically.
You see, this happened when you shifted your definition to "global elite's that are intent on creating a one world centralized government." This helps you cast my worldview in the worst possible light by pretending that I support such people. This is dishonest since I made it very clear that I considered "elite" to be a broad concept. But, I'm still not sure what types of elites you find tolerable and what types you think should have their freedoms limited?
Also, you still have not responded to my post. You gave a lot of emotional examples of "elites" hurting people as a justification for limiting their freedom. You never showed me why your views are not contradictory. Yet ironically you accuse me of engaging in doublethink.
These issues need to be addressed:
* You have yet to concede that your analogy between the existence of elites and religion was inappropriate. It clearly was, and I explained why in my last post. You wasted many words speaking emotionally when you could have addressed this issue.
* You distorted my argument by ignoring my concluding point. I never suggested we should make liberty our ultimate goal. I suggested we have to make decisions that limit freedom for the "greater good." You inappropriately accused me of believing "elites" should be free to hurt others in the population. What's worse is you wasted your entire post criticizing me for something I never espoused. In fact I suggested the opposite and believe the opposite. We need to make difficult decisions about when its correct to limit freedoms. But unlike yourself, I understand that these are difficult decisions to make.
* You still need to define who you consider elites. I gave examples you could start by answering yes or no to these. I have a feeling your definition is much broader than the one used in the last post. I could get myself into trouble here, but it seems like you wish to limit the freedoms of many types of people that you dislike.
* You need to explain how I engaged in doublethink. You never did.
I want to remind you that this debate started when you tried to argue that the world would be a better place without "elites." I rightly pointed out that your tendency to dislike elites is an example of your often conflicting worldview. I may be at fault for jumping the gun and trying to debate you before you clearly defined what you meant by "elite." Still a logical conclusion is that its inconsistent to say you want to increase liberty, but you want to reduce the liberty of people you dislike.
Even if certain people are "evil" when you suggest we need to limit the freedoms of these people your advocating that we limit freedom. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact most people believe we should limit freedom.
Where most people differ is on the extent to which we should limit freedom and how we should do so. You contradict yourself by claiming to be strongly pro-liberty when you are not. Based on many past statements its clear that you believe we need to limit liberty/freedoms in many ways. Your true ideology does not agree with the libertarian ideology you claim to support. Libertarians accept placing limits on liberty too, but they think we should be very careful in making these decisions. On the other hand, you frequently make statements that suggest you'd carelessly limit many types of freedoms.
It's also a contradiction when you say you dislike elites. You do not. You just wish the elites were more like yourself, then they would be acceptable.
-
Is a business owner elite?
Is an academic elite?
If anyone with a net worth greater than 10 million elite?
Are all politicians elite?
Is anyone with an above average IQ elite?
Is anyone attending harvard elite?
Are religious leaders elite? Is the catholic pope?
Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is an elitist, a global elitist can be identified by the membership to organisations such as the trilaterial commission, the bildabergs, the CFR etc. Therefore it has very little to do with wealth either, someone could have a personal fortune of 500mill that in itself does not say they are a global elitist. Some academics are members of these globalist movements, as are some politicians. Now ...regarding the pope hell yes he has explicitly called for a new world order before, even CNN covered that one.
You plainly ignored what I said the elite as I put it are the global elite, control freaks who want to see the whole world under one unified body so they have total and utter control, now to most people such a notion is downright terrifying and goes against everything including liberty. Unless of course you are suggesting that well all teachers, all academics all rich people want that which as you know is total bs. You said that to not want totalitarianism means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarianism, wtf no you don't understand the autonomy has been swept away illegally, it defies the constitution, it makes a mockery of human rights and it places everyone perilously close to being slaves. I don't think you seem to realise that this surrenderence of power is actually treasonous in some cases so no this has nothing to another form of totalitarianism and everything to do with justice. Yet you were trying to spin this to say oh you so you are against the limiting of freedoms for individuals like I said that is complete double think.
Of course I am going to cite the examples of China or living under the soviet union block. I still don't think you grasp this human rights are your inaleable rights that is what the constitution recognises and that is what common law recognises. For you to say that such a stance is a rant or incoherent is bemusing and frankly disturbing, it's like everytime another bill comes in which sweeps away yet more civil liberties you are creating a new reality for yourself one in which everything becomes normalised, a "realist" as you put it. Do you not understand that the creation of an E.U superstate was not democratic was not free and fair, it was initially started on the premise that it would be a free trading block and then slowly it led to more calls for co-operation and then oh i think we should harmonise this, harmonise thatm meanwhile denying that a superstate was being formed while constructing it under plain view.
So basically fuck this idea that religion is to blame, yes it plays a part but international bankers and other global elites are the real enemy. By the way I do not think I am so damn intelligent but what I do is read, I understand common law I understand the magna carta. I have read many of the euroopean unions own documents. I have read many of the globalists own documents, when they are letting you know what they are going to do. After all you do realise that plans are underway to "normalise" the north american union by merging canada mexico and america under one currency the amero to "combat" the euro. No this is not an assumption, look at your dollar and it's actual worth now, it's not a short term trend the plummeting of the dollar, I am sure it will rise again slightly and then the media can hit you with some spin about the "dollar continuing its rise" but month after month it is plummeting and the currency will be totally abandoned soon then you will know what financial imprisonment is. Financial imprisonment means as in the case of the euro that there is literally no way out of it, Italy made noises it wanted to pull out and it was told in no uncertain terms you have no escape exit.
It's worth noting that the notion of a one world government one world religion one world economic system has always been denied, played down or frankly the individual has been labelled the ad hominim "conspiracy theorist" Yet it's not as if the idea in itself was bizarre that is exactly what the communist manifesto itself calls for, I have had the misfortune to read that horrible document they don't believe in nationality, or states thus ultimately no domestic government. i know how you will react to this last paragraph by pointing towards Chavez being a socialist and you would have a valid point if he slowly moves his feet towards embracing the union, then such a point will be merited. Frankly I really do not care if you try and deny or play down the validity of this response you can deny reality all you want it's still reality. Like I said I look forward to reading your responses after watching america from freedom to facism about how it's a "conspiracy theory". It's funny when you watched "the economist with a phd" you were never able to say what it was he said that was wrong, all you could say was well anyone can hold a phd.
Edit*I just noticed you say the concept of liberty is amoral, where the hell do you get this from, the whole pupose of civil liberties is to protect the citizen from the state and under both the u.s and the british constitution these are your inalieable rights. These civil liberties are there to protect the citizen from state oppression. I really do not think you grasp this at all.
-
Is a business owner elite?
Is an academic elite?
If anyone with a net worth greater than 10 million elite?
Are all politicians elite?
Is anyone with an above average IQ elite?
Is anyone attending harvard elite?
Are religious leaders elite? Is the catholic pope?
Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is an elitist, a global elitist can be identified by the membership to organisations such as the trilaterial commission, the bildabergs, the CFR etc. Therefore it has very little to do with wealth either, someone could have a personal fortune of 500mill that in itself does not say they are a global elitist. Some academics are members of these globalist movements, as are some politicians. Now ...regarding the pope hell yes he has explicitly called for a new world order before, even CNN covered that one.
Do you understand that this is your definition? You sound like your yelling at me for defining elite differently. You're at fault for not clearly explaining yourself - not me for being unable to "know" what exactly you meant. I assumed you meant "elite" as defined by modern dictionaries. And was understanding enough to guess that perhaps you meant differently. But don't blast me for you inability to properly communicate. That's just ridiculous. By all means, we can use this definition now that I know what you're talking about tho.
You plainly ignored what I said the elite as I put it are the global elite,
That's nonsense. I clearly afforded you to the opportunity to "define" elite. You initially just said "without elites the world would be a better place." I very clearly mentioned that this statement was vague and needed to be clarified. How you can possibly claim this is beyond me. I'm the one that asked you to clarify what you meant.
control freaks who want to see the whole world under one unified body so they have total and utter control, now to most people such a notion is downright terrifying and goes against everything including liberty. Unless of course you are suggesting that well all teachers, all academics all rich people want that which as you know is total bs.
No shit that is totally BS. That's why I never suggested such a thing, so what the fuck are you trying to say? As I said very cleary... this is why I took offense to you initial statement and asked for clarification. You said "the world would be better off without elites." I assumed you initially were properly using the word "elite." When in fact you were not. Of course I was the one that was reasonable enough to ask for you to clarify in case you were inappropriately using the term.
You said that to not want totalitarianism means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarianism, wtf no you don't understand the autonomy has been swept away illegally, it defies the constitution, it makes a mockery of human rights and it places everyone perilously close to being slaves. I don't think you seem to realise that this surrenderence of power is actually treasonous in some cases so no this has nothing to another form of totalitarianism and everything to do with justice. Yet you were trying to spin this to say oh you so you are against the limiting of freedoms for individuals like I said that is complete double think.
This was not coherently written. Stop using so many assumptions and so much emotion in your post. And please learn to avoid run on sentences. I don't need to read your entire jumbled thought process.
Of course I am going to cite the examples of China or living under the soviet union block. I still don't think you grasp this human rights are your inaleable rights that is what the constitution recognises and that is what common law recognises. For you to say that such a stance is a rant or incoherent is bemusing and frankly disturbing, it's like everytime another bill comes in which sweeps away yet more civil liberties you are creating a new reality for yourself one in which everything becomes normalised, a "realist" as you put it. Do you not understand that the creation of an E.U superstate was not democratic was not free and fair, it was initially started on the premise that it would be a free trading block and then slowly it led to more calls for co-operation and then oh i think we should harmonise this, harmonise thatm meanwhile denying that a superstate was being formed while constructing it under plain view.
Again, I am not discussing any of this crap. I am for ideas that help society and against those that hurt them in a general sense. But examples bear no relation to my argument. You just want to cite them because you think this emotional drivel makes you stance more relevant. It does not.
So basically fuck this idea that religion is to blame, yes it plays a part but international bankers and other global elites are the real enemy. By the way I do not think I am so damn intelligent but what I do is read, I understand common law I understand the magna carta. I have read many of the euroopean unions own documents. I have read many of the globalists own documents, when they are letting you know what they are going to do. After all you do realise that plans are underway to "normalise" the north american union by merging canada mexico and america under one currency the amero to "combat" the euro. No this is not an assumption, look at your dollar and it's actual worth now, it's not a short term trend the plummeting of the dollar, I am sure it will rise again slightly and then the media can hit you with some spin about the "dollar continuing its rise" but month after month it is plummeting and the currency will be totally abandoned soon then you will know what financial imprisonment is. Financial imprisonment means as in the case of the euro that there is literally no way out of it, Italy made noises it wanted to pull out and it was told in no uncertain terms you have no escape exit.
It's worth noting that the notion of a one world government one world religion one world economic system has always been denied, played down or frankly the individual has been labelled the ad hominim "conspiracy theorist" Yet it's not as if the idea in itself was bizarre that is exactly what the communist manifesto itself calls for, I have had the misfortune to read that horrible document they don't believe in nationality, or states thus ultimately no domestic government. i know how you will react to this last paragraph by pointing towards Chavez being a socialist and you would have a valid point if he slowly moves his feet towards embracing the union, then such a point will be merited. Frankly I really do not care if you try and deny or play down the validity of this response you can deny reality all you want it's still reality. Like I said I look forward to reading your responses after watching america from freedom to facism about how it's a "conspiracy theory". It's funny when you watched "the economist with a phd" you were never able to say what it was he said that was wrong, all you could say was well anyone can hold a phd.
This is not about our discussion. Stop fucking ranting.
Edit*I just noticed you say the concept of liberty is amoral, where the hell do you get this from, the whole pupose of civil liberties is to protect the citizen from the state and under both the u.s and the british constitution these are your inalieable rights. These civil liberties are there to protect the citizen from state oppression. I really do not think you grasp this at all.
The concept of liberty is amoral. Here is the difference... hopefully you can understand:
Morality is your system of principles regarding right or wrong conduct. "Civil liberties" are moral concepts. We define them and they in turn define part of our morality.
When you choose what "civil liberties" are "important" you're defining your morality.
But liberty is just a thing. You don't get choose what liberty is. Liberty is just the "state of being free." Your opinion towards liberty is "moral." But the liberty itself is amoral. When you say people should have x,y,z freedoms that is a MORAL JUDGMENT. But freedom itself is not moral. There is no moral judgment involved in defining a word.
For example,
A "chair" is "a seat typically having four legs and a back for one person." Chairs are amoral. If you were to say "everyone has a right to possess at least one chair." That is moral.
"Liberty" is "the state of being free." Liberty is amoral. If you say "everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." That is moral. Likewise if you say "everyone should surrender themselves to the will of the state." That is moral. But liberty by itself is not moral.
Do you understand?
---
Also you are being dishonest when you suggest you only want to limit the freedoms of "global elites." You've suggested many times in the past that you want to limit the freedoms of other groups you dislike. For example, increasing the min. wage limits the freedom of many groups. It limits the freedoms of unemployed workers to accept a job at a lower wage. It limits the freedom of employers to offer the wages they wish.
You also support Chavez nationalization of industry. This is another anti-liberty idea. Your supporting Chavez's right to steal the freedoms of others. This is why I say you support increasing the freedoms of people you like, and decreasing the freedoms of people you dislike. You like Chavez so we can unfairly allow him to increase his own freedoms. You dislike business, so its acceptable for him to decrease their freedoms. For example, another decision he made was to regulate the air travel industry. Only Venezuelan airlines can fly in and out of Venezuela regularly.
This is another example of people with twisted logic increasing the freedom of their friends while decreasing the freedom of those they dislike. Chavez dislikes foreign companies so they can't serve his population. He likes his buddies so they have the right to monopolize the marketplace.
Being against free trade is anti-liberty too. You support freedom of people to enrich those they like and punish those they dislike. In a completely "free" world anyone could trade with anyone else. That's why its called "free" trade. When you say you support nationalism you're saying you support giving freedom/power to people you like, and allowing them to limit the freedoms of others. This is why nationalism and libertarianism are incompatible.
-
Civil liberties are clearly defined, they are written into the constitution. i am against as everyone else should flushing those civil liberties down the toilet. That is treasonous, that is dangerous and it clearly shows the agenda. The free trade is just a facade as well you know, all it does in actual fact is empower corporations, any political commentator will concede that.. You said I am going off track and yet you use this opportunity to say I am against liberty because I support a minimum wage, I could say you are against liberty because you support globalisation, because it empowers the elite further and weakens strong nations. Neither of them are true I am not against liberty for supporting a minimum wage and neither are you for supporting globalisation. It is how you view such issues, whereas basic civil liberties like freedom of speech, like freedom of expression, like habeus corpus, like the integrity of the constitution can not be debated as in they are being taken and there is nothing positive about that. So again where the hell are you coming from? you are the same person who can't get his head around the fact that the democrats are not going to repeal the military commission act, nor the patriot act, nor the military authorisations bill and dozens of other horrifying violations of human rights. This is much worse than what religion is or isn't doing, it's worth noting that Britain is more or less a secularist state and yet that hasn't stopped oppression, The comparisons between here and stasiland becoming more and more noticeable every passing week. The sooner you can get your head around the fact that the republican party and the democrats are playing good cop bad cop the sooner you will understand that religion is a side issue. However again I am done with this topic, no one else is replying and there is no point replying to you when you either deny that civil liberties are being destroyed by both parties or that destruction of civil liberties really does not matter because it's all religion religion religion.
You said that to oppose a totalitarian world means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarian thinking. That is truly twisted logic I do not want to create something which is not there. Wanting to uphold the constitution and common law has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism and EVERYTHING to do with civil liberties you just don't give a crap, or you just normalise it. Consitution..... what constitution? By the way the reason why there are so many hit pieces put on Chavez is because he is one of the rogue states i.e. the country is not run by a private banking institution and he releases more oil "than he should" he is viewed with anger.
-
Civil liberties are clearly defined, they are written into the constitution.
What was the point of this comment? Of course they are defined by the constitution. But they are also defined differently by different constitutions. The concept of a "civil liberty" is a social construct. They're a subjective ideas. For example, the "right to bear arms" is not a universally accepted civil liberty. In fact the concept of "civil liberty" is not even universally accepted. Tribal societies exist without civil liberties.
i am against as everyone else should flushing those civil liberties down the toilet. That is treasonous, that is dangerous and it clearly shows the agenda.
I think civil liberties are a good thing too, but your thinking is wrong again. It's only treasonous to "flush civil liberties down the toilet" in societies that define it as such. Certain societies don't even have civil liberties. Each country's legal system define was is treasonous you do not get to do so from the side lines. In fact an authoritarian government it's treasonous to advocate for the existence civil liberties. Please don't be so childish as to write a post haranguing me for supporting authoritarianism. I'm just pointing out your incoherent logic.
The free trade is just a facade as well you know
No I don't know. Protectionism IMO is a facade to protect special interests. Of course I'll concede that is my opinion... but as always, my opinion has far more reasonable support than yours.
all it does in actual fact is empower corporations, any political commentator will concede that.
These certainties are getting ridiculous. Free trade does more than just "empower corporations" whatever that means... (yet another example of you opposing the freedoms of people you dislike). And any political commentator will NOT concede that. That's just a silly statement. Many well-intentioned individuals have fought to promote free trade because of its beneficial effects for the global population. These people include Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, David Ricardo, and every nobel prize winning economist to my knowledge supports free trade. But regardless... even if free trade is "evil" which it isn't. It's still anti-liberty to oppose it. Again, liberty is an amoral concept. When you limit liberty for the "greater good" you are still limiting freedom.
For example, putting people in jail is anti-liberty, but its done for the "greater good" and in most cases I think its a reasonable idea. But this is something you still do not grasp. This example is more clear when you consider GWB's treatment of those he considers "evil." Just like yourself GWB wants to limit the freedom of people he considers "evil." But he doesn't get to say "I'm not limiting freedom... these people are evil!" Instead the right-wing pundits rationalize: "we have to limit some freedoms to protect others." You are saying the exact same thing. You want to limit the freedoms of the "evil" to help to "good."
Unlike yourself true libertarians are extremely cautious about limiting freedom. While you want to carelessly limit all sorts of freedoms because you believe you have ultimate truth. In a sense, you think yourself to be Plato's "philosopher king" - you're that unique individual that can decide everything and make the world a better place.
You said I am going off track and yet you use this opportunity to say I am against liberty because I support a minimum wage
Yes I've been consistenly trying to explain to you why you are not pro-liberty. I have to use examples to do that.
I could say you are against liberty because you support globalisation
You could but you'd be mostly wrong. In fact I've already conceding I am against some forms of liberty. You seem to think you aren't against any limits on freedom. As I've already said, the difference is the extent to which we each wish to limit freedom. You wish to limit it to a much greater extent than I do. That's why your wrong to claim you are libertarian.
It is how you view such issues whereas basic civil liberties like freedom of speech, like freedom of expression, like habeus corpus, like the integrity of the constitution can not be debated.
Civil liberties and liberty are two different things. Liberty is "the state of being free." Civil liberties are a set of specific freedoms a society agreed upon and codified. But just like anything else they can be debated. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. For example, do you think its inappropriate to debate the "right of anyone to own a AK-47?" I think its completely reasonable to do such a thing.
So again where the hell are you coming from? you are the same person who can't get his head around the fact that the democrats are not going to repeal the military commission act, nor the patriot act, nor the military authorisations bill and dozens of other horrifying violations of human rights. This is much worse than what religion is or isn't doing, it's worth noting that Britain is more or less a secularist state and yet that hasn't stopped oppression, The comparisons between here and stasiland becoming more and more noticeable every passing week. The sooner you can get your head around the fact that the republican party and the democrats are playing good cop bad cop the sooner you will understand that religion is a side issue.
I never suggested religion is the "main issue." All I said was religion is a) not true b) responsible for some bad things that happen in the world. Whether or not there should be a global crusade to end all religion is not something I'm really concerned with. I'd prefer the world without religion, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. I also never said there aren't other issues we should tackle other than religion, nor did I suggest that the world would be perfect without religion, nor did I say that I'm certain the world would be better without religion. I said I'm inclined to believe it would be, but I conceded it's debatable.
However again I am done with this topic, no one else is replying and there is no point replying to you when you either deny that civil liberties are being destroyed by both parties or that destruction of civil liberties really does not matter because it's all religion religion religion.
Where have I done either of these things? I don't know what exactly your reading. I'm deeply troubled by things like the patriot act and am strongly opposed to the idea of eliminating civil liberties. I think its wrong to sacrifice liberty for "safety" and sincerely hope the US reconsiders its desire to do so.
You said that to oppose a totalitarian world means that you want to impose your own form of totalitarian thinking.
No I said that your desire to limit the freedoms of people you dislike is akin to supporting totalitarianism. In fact you come very close to it in your support of Chavez. Who uses his power of office to steal other people's assets, limit their freedom, increase his own power, and help himself retain office. But you are okay with this because you "like" Chavez... were someone you dislike to do this you'd be upset. Again, you're very much anti-liberty... you repeatedly show that you believe yourself to be the ultimate judge of who deserves to be free and who doesn't. You like Chavez so he deserves more freedom. You dislike business owners so they deserve less. GWB does essentially the same thing. He wants to choose who deserves more freedom and who deserves less.
But true libertarians understand the liberty is amoral. We can't easily increase liberty by sacrificing the freedom of others. Sometimes we have to cautiously limit freedoms for the greater good, but you want to carelessly limit freedoms of people just because you think they are evil.
--
Finally feel free to run away from this post. But again you make no sense. You want to come here to "debate" but when you find one you run away. Then you make up childish rationalizations to make yourself feel better for doing so. No wonder you believe such silly ideas. When people challenge you, you just dismiss them and run.
-
I am not running from any debate if you re-read what my last post actually said then you can clearly see I questioned the point of replying to a thread where no one else is putting forth their views anymore aside from you. I am pressed for time right now but I do actually want to respond to something you have said I never suggested that all socieities have civil liberties, you see unlike most of the western world both Britain's and Americas are seen by the respective constitutions as being inalieable rights, whereas this is not so in most countries. Your civil liberties/human rights are clearly defined in the bill of rights therefore any attempt to undermine or get rid of these rights is a violation of your rights they are not subjective they are inaliable as is clearly stated any attempts to nullify the sovereignty of the nations are treasonous. To underline just how horrific the weathering away of sovereignty is, it's documented fact that 80% of britain's laws are not even decided within britain therefore the public displays of debate are a sham, they can discuss a bill but they can not change the will of the european union. When such power is surrendered from dozens of countries it creates a colosall all powerful central government beyond the government. This is much more dangerous than any religion is, as you should be well aware by now muslims have been demonised to create this perception of a dark enemy who could strike at any time, when in fact for a lot of muslims I have spoken to they say it is the preachings which are keeping most muslims peaceful. Another obvious example... christian evangelicals are being preached blatant lies, in respect of the actual bible. Now compare religion to this to power the north american union, the european union and the asian union. All globalisation has done is weakened any of the more "free" " on earth, slowly destroyed the middle class to make these nations dependent, ensalved the populations financially by driving the wages down and made the elite more powerful. That is my opinion of course but I only have to look at an issue like manufacturing to cite an example where real wealth has been driven out of the country and which has left many areas of this countries desperately poor. My poiint is that the ever growing power of the elites is a deeply more disturbing issue than Allah.
Steals other peoples assets? curtails the peoples freedoms, this is where you deliberately attempt to muddy the waters again I know that when transport infrastructure is being built it is funded by a large proportion of public money as well as private. Curtailing the peoples freedoms? what freedoms of the venezeulan people is he curtailing. As soon as Chavez embraces a federal reserve he will quickly be left off alone believe me, you won't have continuous hit pieces on him so you to will forget about him.
-
I am not running from any debate if you re-read what my last post actually said then you can clearly see I questioned the point of replying to a thread where no one else is putting forth their views anymore aside from you.
Remember I said you had to "rationalize to make yourself feel better." I.E. you're not running from the debate, it's just that no one else is involved. That's a poor excuse.
But that's not what you said initially... you also said "there is no point replying to you when you either deny that civil liberties are being destroyed by both parties or that destruction of civil liberties really does not matter because it's all religion religion religion."
Which was entirely untrue. I showed it as such, and you have yet to concede anything. I know its not easy to say "I'm wrong." But hopefully you learned something about your own fallibility from this discussion if nothing else.
I am pressed for time right now but I do actually want to respond to something you have said I never suggested that all socieities have civil liberties, you see unlike most of the western world both Britain's and Americas are seen by the respective constitutions as being inalieable rights, whereas this is not so in most countries. Your civil liberties/human rights are clearly defined in the bill of rights therefore any attempt to undermine or get rid of these rights is a violation of your rights they are not subjective they are inaliable as is clearly stated any attempts to nullify the sovereignty of the nations are treasonous.
They are certainly subjective. Do you know the meaning of the word? They were agreed upon subjectively and then written into the constitution and the bill of rights. Are you seriously suggesting the "right to bear arms" is not a subjective idea? Constitutions and Bill of Rights represent that opinions of their authors. This is undeniable.
In fact most civil liberties are not "inalienable" rights. Go look up what that word means to since you neither understand it nor do you understand subjective. In fact its the subjective opinion of our founding fathers, and also your subjective opinion that certain rights are "inalienable."
Inalienable means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred." Again, are you going to seriously argue that the "right to bear arms" is "inalienable." Of course it isn't. But certain people "think" it is. That's why the constitution is a "subjective" document. It can't be anything else.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't uphold the constitution, but let's call things as they are.
To underline just how horrific the weathering away of sovereignty is, it's documented fact that 80% of britain's laws are not even decided within britain therefore the public displays of debate are a sham, they can discuss a bill but they can not change the will of the european union. When such power is surrendered from dozens of countries it creates a colosall all powerful central government beyond the government. This is much more dangerous than any religion is, as you should be well aware by now muslims have been demonised to create this perception of a dark enemy who could strike at any time, when in fact for a lot of muslims I have spoken to they say it is the preachings which are keeping most muslims peaceful. Another obvious example... christian evangelicals are being preached blatant lies, in respect of the actual bible. Now compare religion to this to power the north american union, the european union and the asian union. All globalisation has done is weakened any of the more "free" " on earth, slowly destroyed the middle class to make these nations dependent, ensalved the populations financially by driving the wages down and made the elite more powerful. That is my opinion of course but I only have to look at an issue like manufacturing to cite an example where real wealth has been driven out of the country and which has left many areas of this countries desperately poor. My poiint is that the ever growing power of the elites is a deeply more disturbing issue than Allah.
I'm glad you claimed this is just opinion because it is. This is another topic, and I'm not done with this one yet. I'm also not going to argue against facts like "I spoke to people I know and they say..." or "I don't know anything about economics, but I just had to look at manufacturing to know...." If you want to discuss these issues later fine, but please refrain from pretending your subjective ideas are facts.
Steals other peoples assets? curtails the peoples freedoms, this is where you deliberately attempt to muddy the waters again I know that when transport infrastructure is being built it is funded by a large proportion of public money as well as private. Curtailing the peoples freedoms? what freedoms of the venezeulan people is he curtailing. As soon as Chavez embraces a federal reserve he will quickly be left off alone believe me, you won't have continuous hit pieces on him so you to will forget about him.
I am not muddying the waters. When you nationalize industry you steal assets from other people for yourself. Chavez stole oil assets to help himself. He now freely spends those assets to solidify political support and people like you fall for it.
Giving away oil at below market prices is not helping his country. He is using it to buy support. This policy is amazingly anti-liberty, yet you support it. I can tolerate someone arguing that its acceptable to nationalize certain industries (esp. one's that are related to natural resources). But when he starts giving away oil at below market prices its very clear he is being politically manipulative. And in fact has stolen the assets of other people for his own benefit. If he was more genuine he'd sell the oil at its acceptable price. What's more ironic, is that I'll bet your an environmentalist too... actually so am I. This type of policy is not only anti-liberty, but its also anti-environment.
He's doing the same thing with the air industry. He is curtailing the freedom of his people to travel using foreign airlines. This was a major frustration for the Venezuelan people when I spoke to them. It's difficult to travel in and out of the country. Chavez decided to limit the freedom of foreign companies to compete with the Venezuelan firms. In doing so he not only curtailed the freedom of the foreign firms, but also limited the freedom of his own people. And its more obnoxious because these policies are basically special interest favoritism. Apparently in your world, monopolies are bad, unless they're intentionally created by dictators that you like. And yes Chavez is very close to being a dictator.
How can another candidate compete with someone that is using his power of office to solidify support? But this is acceptable to you because you like Chavez. Imagine if Bush nationalized our natural resources and started giving them away to his buddies. Or what if he made a law that said American's can only buy from firms he finds acceptable? You'd be upset, as would I, but with Chavez its okay.
As I've said many times. You essentially want to limit the freedoms of people you dislike and increase the freedoms of those you like.
-
In the meantime, can I ask what you're talking about now ???
-
Lol well I basically said that the real threat was not from religion it was from the global elite who are decimitating the sovereignty of nations and the rest is history
-
The whole purpose of the constitution was to limit a governments power by creating a list of guarantees that every citizen has the right to. Whenever a new government is sworn in, they are sworn to uphold the constitution. Therefore for you to state that the right to bear arms is somehow subjective is a downright lie when it is clearly defined within the bill of rights, which is afterall an integral part of the constitution. This underlines a previous point, those who approved the military commissions bill commited treason because the bill violates all but one of the amendments and hence it is the many criminal politicians who are much greater danger to the world than any religious faction, following or person.