: :: Erm? Anyway, is it coincidence that Hitler was a prodct of the industrialized, capitalized West?: Allude to industrialization and capitalism instead of moral bankruptcy to explain the depravity Third Reich. Real good, Nik. You are brainwashed.
Hitler's main problem was obviously a deeply fucked up soul, but he was able to get the backing of the German capitalist class....anyway, i concede that it's a weak argument, evil people spring up in all systems.
: :: 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.
: Are you for real Nikhil? I suppose after the communists grabbed it from Somoza things improved a bit for Nicaraguans.
They improved a lot, actually....
:Somoza was treating it like his own personal estate after all. But are you suggesting that communism was to be given the credit for their increase in living standards?
Bingo! You got it! Hit the jackpot!
: Don't you think you might want to credit the combination of ending a resource sucking dictatorship and a large infusion of Russian cash for that improvment?
Socialism = Ending teh resource sucking idctatorship of teh capitalists. I'm glad we agree on this point, that such things are good.
: It might be a good idea for you to acknowledge that the Soviets were quite busy with global imperialism at that time and that the money they gave was buying some pretty loyal support down there.
The Sandinista Front weren't Soviet hacks, they took their inspiration from the American andFrench revolutions as well as the Russian one.
:As for the United States being terrorist, I expect that kind of rhetoric from a brainwashed hack.
Stu, are you seriously denying that the United States killed 30,000 people by proxy in Nicaragua, 200,000 in Guatemala, several million in Vietnam, etc? That they subverted democracy relentlessly in Chile, Guyana, Iran, Vietnam, Italy, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and other countries? That they terrorized teh ferely elected Nicaraguan governmment into submission over the 1980s? That is teh textbook definition of terrorism, Stu, using terror to accomplish political ends. the United States didn't like the FLSN, so they decided to intimidate the Nicaraguans through murder and sabotage (via teh Contra War) untill eventually teh Nicaraguans were forced to say "uncle" and install a pro-US hack. There is no clearere example of terrorism around.
:I expect Cuba never had any nukes and the whole thing was a capitalist plot to justify blowing communism off the map.
Just try and think for a minute hpw teh Cubans must feel with an armed-to-the teeth, avowedly hostile enemy 90 miles away, that oinsists on blockading them for 40 years. the blockade is economic terrorism, Stu, and is extremely evil.
: :: 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.
: Then thank God you have it instead of feeling guilty about it.
I do thank God I'm comofortably off, i curse teh system for allowing such disparities, and I believe that to serve God I need to try and work towards a better society where such discrepancies no longer exist.
: :: capitalists don't earn their money, they live as parasites off the frits of other people's labor.
: Too bad that's a textbook definition for socialisism.
Whose textbook are you using? Socialism = (communism =) the common and democratic ownership of the means of prodiuction to be used in teh interest of society as a whole, particualrly with regards to the poor.
: :: 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.
: Execept for the money, of course, which is necessary. Incidently, if money isn't objectively valuable why do you accept it in trade for anything?
If the government signed a piece of paper granting every business an extra million dollars, than many enterprises would suddenly ahve no need for the capitalist's investment. This is merely a spurious financial maneuver, with nothing changing objectively, yet it leads to teh capitalist becoming unneccessary. Therefore, the need for teh capitalist is based on social,not objective conditions.
: :: Capitalists earn nothing, and steal what they own from teh workers.
: Stuff your rhetoric Nikhil. The meaning of words like theft and stealing remain understood regardless of your attempts to obfuscate and generate emotive reactions.
Maybe in teh West but not worldwide, Stu. The billions of people worldiwde who support socialism disagree with you, stu. You are in a small minority. Sorry to break it to you.
: ::By teh way, standard of living increases in socialist / communist countries are indeed long term. look at Kerala or sweden for example.
: Yeah, look at 'em. Professionals have been leaving them in droves for years. Sweden is a textbook case. Do you have any idea how many swedish doctors have opted for America recently? The tax rate is through the roof. The government pays for nearly everything. The people who are motivated to achieve are homoganized and resent it. They are leaving.
Many of my relatives are scientists originally from India, and quite a few of them are moving back because they resent the violence, greed and capitalism that they see around them.
: :: And no, it's not just Russia russia, belarus, Latvia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Chechoslovakia,
: After decades of breeding the concepts of central economies into a people there can be no expectation of rapid understanding of what it actually means to be free.
Freedom is possible only under socialism.
: In addition, capital is not going to flow into these countries overnight. It must be a slow progression towards the goal. But let's ask a Latvian how he feels about his freedom in 50 years, shall we?
Lenin said teh same thing about one-party Bolshevism. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Amazing how the Right authoritarians and teh Left Leninists have so much in common.
: Mongolia, Nicaragua, Chile, the Congo, Mozambique, Angola, jamaica.....the list goes on and on.
: Are you seriously using these countries as testaments to the overwhelming failure of capitalism? Your joking, right?
No, I'm using them as exampoles ofcountries that abandoned socialsim forcapitalism. nicaragua has gone to hell in a handbasket sinvce 1990, when socialism ended. is taht a coinscidence?
: :: Communism Lives! Especially in India.
: ??? India enjoys respect for rule of law, protects private property, requires state compensation for seizure of property, has a growing consumer based middle class, and has a market based economy. Ghadar is going nowhere over there and you know it.
India's constitution defiens it as a "democratic, secular, socialist republic". Three states in india are communist, totalling over 120 million people and including india's intellectual capital as well as its state with teh highest standard of living. India's public sector is still huge, things like teh insurance industry ave successfully managed to remain public. many of teh banks and otehr financial institutions are publicly owned. India's states vary from being communist to social-democratic, with a few that are run by religious fundamentalists or corrupt thugs. India has possible the most radical affirmative action program in the world. Though tehre may be a "mnarket socialism", capitalism per se is still despised in India. Suggest capitalism to most Indians and they'l laugh in your face. the Communist, Jyoti Basu is still being suggested as Prime Minister over there.
: :: Nice try redefining my tolerance into selifshness, and redefining bigotry into altruism.
: Did you not say that you didn't care if the whole world went gay except for you and some nice girl? If your going to go to those rhetorical lengths to make your point I'm going to mess with you.
Mess away; some of my Indian relatives think the same way (i.e. excessive interference in otehr people's lives proves you care) so I'm used to it.
: :: 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.
: Maybe God is quite rational but doesn't wish to explain Himself to you.
That doesn't amek sense. can you explain taht further? It's possiblke, I suppose, but unlikely. Why would God want to play a power trip?
You knwo, I really don't understand. if I said, "My God chooses to explain himelf because my scriptures say he does" you would applaud. when i say "My God chooses to explain himslef because that's in accordance with the principles of reason" you deride this argument. Why si reason a worse reason fro inferring things about religion than is written authroity, which may or may not be accurate? I don't buy taht at all.
: Forcing Him to manifest Himself according to your understanding sounds a little arrogant.
Not at all. Using him to justify teh worst kinds of prejudice (the caste system, etc.) is worse than arrogant, it is evil.
: :: I.e. we shoudl be able to formulate arguments why his decrees would make sense even to a nonbeliever.
: ?What? This is a complete cognitive breakdown, Nikhil. A nonbeliever doesn't believe. Let's just eliminate God for the sake of convenience. After He's gone we can make up a sensible religion.
No, all I'm saying is that the cosmological existence of scientific, rational laws suggests a rational God. The existenc of human morality suggests a loving, moral God. therefore, God's wishes should be able to be figured out rationally, especially since there is NO better way of figuring them out. (You can't tell hwo much of teh holy books is accurate and how much is coprruption.)
: :: I am prepared to do this for any ethic that i hpold to be divinely inspired.
: You will do as you wish apparently, regardless of what might be true.
: :: Those things that i cannotd do thsi for, I thrown out with a vengeance.
: So all things suboordinate themselves to your intellect or they cease to exist? That's deeply arrogant Nikhil.
Anyone who allows evil to go on in teh name of God, and never stops to think that God may not really ahve wanted it that way, that he has eben misinyterpreted, is being arrogant as well as evil.
:That deifies yourself and humanizes God.
Stu, what is wrong with questioning whether ancient writers may ahve forced tehir own prejudices into ":revelation". Let's say tomorrow I wrote a holy book after a conversation with God. Let's furtehr say i misinterpreted some of what he said, or forced my own opinions into teh book, so it woulnd up saying taht slaevry was right. Does that make slavery right, since it is justified in a book that was based on divine revelation? Should the error be propagated down through millenia? SHOULDN"T SOMEONE QUESTION WHAT"S GOING ON?!
:But don't forget that if you throw those things out with a vengeance, they will continue to exist if they are truth.
I',m throwing them out because it's patently obvious taht they're not true, Stu. Obviosuly, i hold teh opiniosn I do about morality because I believe these valeus are based on real facts. Stop persoistently trying to pigeonhoel me into your preconception of what a socialist should be.
: :: 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?
: Why should I do that just to suit you?
You don't ahev to, but if you believe in a raytional God it woudl make sense.
:
: :: 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.
: Of course, you mean, "Please don't tell me that your morality is based upon the biblical God because morality is whatever I want it to be."
: Well, I can't do that Nikhil. I base morality on what I believe is God's instruction to us.
me too. And i believe that God has nothing against homosexuality, because it harms no one and is an expression of intimacy and love for anotehr human being.
None.
