Thanks for responding Stu!: :: Well, they are. The right stands for things like hierarchy, exploitation, and oppression, which i think are horrible. Simple as that. The term "religious right" incidentally, is an oxymoron- go back and look at how communist Jesus was.
: Now you know why I don't respond.
Why? Because my points are so inarguable? Look all over the world for= examples of the religious left. Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Burma, Brazil, Nicaragua....Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, and he also said "thy kingdom come, ON EARTH as in heaven", which is a clear justification for trying to establish a socoiety in accordance with divine law (iincluding an economics of sharing, i.e. communism) on the earth.
"Catholicism and Conservatism are incompatible bedfellows."-Graham Greene.
: :: have you ever heard of living lightly on the earth? have you ever heard of nonviolence? Perhaps these concepts are foreign to your way of thinking, but for a good billion and a half people they are the basis of teh moral code.
: As long as they don't live next door to Hitler everthing's fine, eh Nikhil?
Erm? Anyway, is it coincidence that Hitler was a prodct of the industrialized, capitalized West?
: :: capitalism hgas produced nothing but starvation, diseaser, inequality and the loss of freedom on a scale unprevcendented in human history. Before you argue with this statement, ask yourself teh following. 1) Why is it that the highest standards of living, across the spectrum of wealth levels, is invariably found in socialist states.
: Because socialism can only happen after capitalism has created wealth to redistribute. Socialism does not create wealth.
What in Bob's sweet name are you talking about? nicaragua under communism registered the highest growth rate in latin America IN SPITE of the American embargo....that is, until Ameroica started launching its terrorist war against a freely elected communist democracy.
: ::2) Why has every state that goes from capitalism to socialism seen an increase in the standard of living?
: Because thieves took what wasn't theirs and gave it to those who didn't earn it. But that standard of living is temporary.
Got news for you, Stu. To quote my former high school headmaster (an Episcopal Reverend) "you don't deserve anything you own; you didn't deserveto be born into those circumstances." None of us in America deserve what we have. capitalists don't earn their money, they live as parasites off the frits of other people's labor. Obviosuly if tehy supply engineering or technical advice tehy are useful, but if tehy jsut supply money and investment then the contribute absolutely nothing of any value in an objective sense. Capitalists earn nothing, and steal what they own from teh workers. By teh way, standard of living increases in socialist / communist countries are indeed long term. look at Kerala or sweden for example.
: :: 3) Why ahs every state so far that goes from socialism to capitalism seen a drop in teh standard of living, with no turnaround seen for the near future?
: Would you be talking about Russia? But what about China?
China was never socialist or communist, communism is incompatible with the centralized one-man rule taht it endured under Mao. China went from a pathological, anarchic (non-communist) one-man autocracy to a hybrid of market socialism and political repression. is it any wonder the economy improved (and by teh way, many indicatoprs have declined, i.e. teh employment rate.)
And no, it's not just Russia russia, belarus, Latvia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Chechoslovakia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Chile, the Congo, Mozambique, Angola, jamaica.....the list goes on and on.
: :: I've been asking capitalists these questions for months and I have yet to hear an answer. perhaps you have one. Long Live International Communism!
: After it's resurrected?
Communism Lives! Especially in India.
: :: I don't have a problem if everyone except me and one nice girl turn homosexual, Stu. The way tehy find romantic fulfilment is none of my concern. Nor is it yours.
: That statement belies your selfishness. You don't care if the whole future of mankind's existence is over as long as you can have your fun. I thought you liberals cared for other people.
Nice try redefining my tolerance into selifshness, and redefining bigotry into altruism. i would argue, however, that it's the epitome of selfishness to say 'Homosexuality makes me feel uncomfortable, therefore I'mm going to demand taht everyone else be exactly like me just so i can feel good about myself." They ahve exactly as much right to find love and fulfilment as you or I, stu. Tolerance has nothing to do with selfishness, instead it's a realization of our basic human equality with one anoyther. It baffles me how you can think taht bigotry is something good.
I'm still awaiting a response, by the way, to my unanswerd point. If your God is a rational God, then it follows that his laws must be able to be accomodated within a framework of reason. I.e. we shoudl be able to formulate arguments why his decrees would make sense even to a nonbeliever. I am prepared to do this for any ethic that i hpold to be divinely inspired. Those things that i cannotd do thsi for, I thrown out with a vengeance. this is just part of teh reason, for example, why I rejevct the caste system with a vengeance. It was not divinely inspird, rather it was a corruption of teh religion introduced by power-seeking men. Now, Stu, will you do the same? can you supply a non-biblical reason why homosexuality is wrong?
: If the instinct to procreate and to eat are just about as basic an urge as can be had, why is the male animal who trys to have sex with another male justification for homosexuality and the animal who eats the other not justification for me to eat meat?
: Well?
I've gone over thsi already but i will do so again. The fact that homosexuality is natural and common among animals does not mean, per se, that it is right for us. However, it takes the burden of proof off the defenders of homosexuality, since the arguemnt taht it is a bizzarre human invention is clearly false. The burden of proof is on you to explain why it is immoral. Why is it immoral? please supply a reason, and please don't resort to biblical arguments, for teh reason outlined above.
Incidentally, the meat eating argument falls flat. i could just as well ague, "gorillas eat only vegetables, hence eating vegetables is natural, hence we should only eat vegetables."
: Stuart Gort
