Comrades, Pick me Apart

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ok, ok... I'll stop.

Continue on with the rest of Uber's long and insightful post please .

[Velociryx]

Thank you again...yes, he raised the point, but in his own explanation, I think he made it pretty clear what he meant by the use of the word. Whether "his use" is proper or improper....somehow I don't think that's the kind of "picking apart" he meant. Could be wrong, but I'd not bet the ranch on it.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ok, ok... I'll stop.

Continue on with the rest of Uber's long and insightful post please .

Ummmm, I didn't read, just the part about religion.

Somebody else must bring up another point.

ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
NOT ANYMORE! In this day and age, not theist is divided into agnostic or atheist.

Btw, Tuberki's point is good. What about Wiccans and Druids? Atheists?

So not theists are divided into agnostics or not theists? That's brilliant.

Tell me, what is the metaphysical belief difference between your "agnostic" and an athiest who does not believe in God? (Hint: There is none). Is there going to be any fundamental worldview difference between them? No. It is pointless to separate them, no such delineation is warranted.

Why is it? Usage determines defintion. If the majority of the people believed Hindu means Satanism, then that is what it is. The minority Hindus may not like it, but if the majority decides that's the true meaning... well, little they can do about it.

Guess what? The majority doesn't determine the true meaning of a term through common usage in cases like this. It is self-evident that ascribing the tenets of one religion to another is an ERROR, whether it's widely used or not. Frankly, I'm not even convinced the majority DO use it your way. Regardless, ignorance of the majority is still ignorance.

Ascribing the "believes god does not exist" belief to all Athiests is no different than ascribing, say, the "prays to the Virgin Mary" tenet to all Christian beliefs, not just Catholics. Or, more broadly, like assuming all theists are Christians.

Athiesm encompasses a broad spectrum of beliefs. Namely, anything that isn't theist. You can try to lawyer out of the word all you want, but there's nothing in between a theist and a not theist!

Yeah, and sorry Uber. I'm done with it, too.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Thank you again...yes, he raised the point, but in his own explanation, I think he made it pretty clear what he meant by the use of the word. Whether "his use" is proper or improper....somehow I don't think that's the kind of "picking apart" he meant. Could be wrong, but I'd not bet the ranch on it.

-=Vel=-

The problem came when he mischaracterized the beliefs of atheists, however, which, being one, I was bound to object to.







(Okay, that's it)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ok, since I feel guilty .

I believe in a classless society.

Do you truely believe a classless society can exist. Even in a truely equal society, I STILL think classes will exist. Even though they make the same money, the doctor or the lawyer will be a higher 'class' of respect than a farmer, say. Class may evolve into a 'better' version of class (depending on your definition of class), but it'll never go away, I think.

Flipping the pyramid.

So what you are saying is that capitalism will fail because too many people will become rich? I totally disagree. If more people become rich, the system works. Maybe you'll say who will do the menial labor, well technology is advancing all the time and people like Kidicious on this forum say that will destroy jobs for lower income. However, if you combine this tech with people getting richer, wouldn't it work better for everyone in the end?

[Tuberski]

Of course there will always be some sort of class, if nothing else those of us that are good looking will lord it over those of you who are not......



ACK!

[Boris Godunov]

Speak for yourself...ugly.

[Inverse Icarus]

Do you truely believe a classless society can exist. Even in a truely equal society, I STILL think classes will exist. Even though they make the same money, the doctor or the lawyer will be a higher 'class' of respect than a farmer, say. Class may evolve into a 'better' version of class (depending on your definition of class), but it'll never go away, I think.

i contend that it is possible to eliminate "class", as it stands today. as for what you say, perhaps a doctor would have more respect in a society, than say a farmer, but what would that end up doing for him in the long run? if they are equal on every other level, do you really think social inequalities would rise up and become that big a deal?

and, in my opinion, anyone who is doing their part for society deserves the same respect. i acknowledge the fact that doctors have to work harder to get there, and deal with more complex suitations, and perhaps that may get them more "respect" amoungst peers. i don't see it causing that big a deal though.

So what you are saying is that capitalism will fail because too many people will become rich? I totally disagree. If more people become rich, the system works. Maybe you'll say who will do the menial labor, well technology is advancing all the time and people like Kidicious on this forum say that will destroy jobs for lower income. However, if you combine this tech with people getting richer, wouldn't it work better for everyone in the end?

first off, i would contend that some of that technology would eventually evolve into a person, and should be granted the rights as such. but aside from that, i'll address your initial point. the way i see it, the rich prey off the poor. it's not like everyone is getting richer slowly, the rich are staying rich off the poor. both classes are growing, and at this point in time the lower class happens to be growing faster than the upper class. will this continue for all time? if so, capitialism will work indefinately. if the upper class starts to overtake the lower classes, however, we'll begin to see some problems.

of course, one could say that the rich would then get poor again, and the cycle would restart. i don't know if the blue bloods would let that happen if they saw that comming.

[Sava]

Uber...

Your Religion views sound identical to mine, although I was raised Serbian (or Eastern) Orthodox. I don't quite have hatred for that institution... in fact, if one were to follow Christianity, I would suggest the Orthodox church to be the truest form of it. Catholicism is messed up... don't even get me started. Protestantism in general is... well... messed up as well. Basically, each denomination is just some other guy's interpretation of the Bible... and even if you assume it's legitimate, such teachings and interpretations are unsubstantiated and detrimental to faith in general. But hey, this is America, and people can believe whatever they want, no matter how stupid... just keep it out of government, and I won't have a problem with it.

Political System: I think America should be more Democratic (not the party )... I'm not in favor of a total direct democracy because it would be terribly difficult to run. I think it would be best to institute reforms with the current system, rather than to scrap it and try again.

Economics: Despite it's flaws, capitalism is good. But as with anything in life, it requires rules and regulations, and shouldn't be the be-all, end-all of how we do things. I think there should be a free market in consumer goods (with a set of general ground rules against abuses). Health Care, Education, Transportation, Telecommunications, and Energy production should be planned, under public control, and done at the highest possible efficiency (that means no profits for corporate fat cats ). But such a system should be designed and tested before set into play. And nothing should be set in stone. If something doesn't work, or falls victim to corruption, it should be dealt with. If the private sector can successfully offer services more efficiently than a publically controlled entity, then it should be allowed to offer such services. Ideally, I'd like to see competition between the public and private sectors. I think that's the best way to avoid corruption in either case.

[Tuberski]

All you communists should take note, the Mormon religion follows a lot of the tenets of communism.

ACK!

[Sava]

All you communists should take note, the Mormon religion follows a lot of the tenets of communism.

:::SHIVER:::

run away

[Odin]

This thread has been to death. Can we please get back on topic.

Uber, you seem to contradict yourself when you say you are a socialist and then say communism has failled. It has failed so far, but you are wrong, I believe, on that it will never work. Once people get enlightened and get out of the hole of Materialism dug by capitalism we are on are way to utopia. Humans are not naturally greedy, it is a result of psycological reinforcement in childhood (corporations get kids' parents to pay big $$$ to keep the kids "cool" via advertising) ( Ming).

[Sava]

Odin: Communism, even as described by Marx, is a one party system. There's no Democratic system detailed. Social Democracy is a much better model... and much more realistic.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sava
:::SHIVER:::

run away

It's true. Why do you think they keep food stores and everytime you turn around they are asking for money for various programs.

They have many church owned farms. One article I read in TIME several years ago, says that they have the second largest beef holdings in the entire country.

ACK!