The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[Massy]

democracy (one person chosen by many)<hr></blockquote>

No.

de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1.Government by the people.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

[French démocratie, from Late Latin dmocratia, from Greek dmokrati : dmos, people; see d- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]

com·mu·nism Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

so·cial·ism Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

The lack of any ground being made is due to the lack of any intellectual common ground, and the sheer opaqueness of your writing. You have made as little as I have, and if I were conceding, would I still be posting? Don't try and claim you've won just because you're running out of steam.

I don't see the point in a new post paticularly, seeing as the atheists vs theists thread is pretty much dead now.

[ February 16, 2002: Message edited by: Massy ]</p>

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>I don't see the point in a new post paticularly, seeing as the atheists vs theists thread is pretty much dead now.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Are you suggesting we make a new topic? Or are you suggesting we stop this discussion?

 

[Massy]

Carry it on here.

 

[JBird1203]

=I'll throw in my 2 cents about communism, because I just learned about this stuff in World History class.
=Socialism is when all employees are paid the same, regardless of perormance. Let's say Willy can make 20 radios a day and Wilbur can make 50. They get paid the same, and they are supposed to work for the better of the people, and not be greedy. Also in socialism, the government owns the companies and decides what the people can get, as apposed to capitalism, where the private owners of companies can sell whatever they want based on what the people want. Let's say that the socialist government says that all citizens must drive a Ford Taurus. Does everyone want a Taurus? Does a Taurus fit a family of 8 people? Can everyone afford it?
=Communism is extreme socialism. That's all. Karl Marx is the founder of socialism, and wrote a book explaining his ideas, called The Communist Manifesto. In that book, he said that (I'm not quoting, only paraphrasing), "Yes, the nature of man is greedy. But soon, humans will rise to their potential, and work for the good of the community and country, rather than work for himself and his family." Ultimately, humans still remained greedy, and capitalism is the most widely used form of economics. A not about capitalism: It's, "leader" is/was Adam smith, who stated (another paraphrase), "In capitalism both the consumer and the seller win. The people get what they want, the vendors get however much money they want, if they make a sell. The people have more options than i social ism, and that creates competition between companies. Competition means price reductions in order to make a sale, which benefits the customer."

BTW: here's an article that I found that accuses Mario of being a communist: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/murmario/" target="_blank">Communist Mario?</a>

[ February 17, 2002: Message edited by: JBird1203 ]</p>

 

[Massy]

I'll throw in my 2 cents about communism, because I just learned about this stuff in World History class.
=Socialism is when all employees are paid the same, regardless of perormance. Let's say Willy can make 20 radios a day and Wilbur can make 50. They get paid the same, and they are supposed to work for the better of the people, and not be greedy. Also in socialism, the government owns the companies and decides what the people can get, as apposed to capitalism, where the private owners of companies can sell whatever they want based on what the people want. Let's say that the socialist government says that all citizens must drive a Ford Taurus. Does everyone want a Taurus? Does a Taurus fit a family of 8 people? Can everyone afford it?
=Communism is extreme socialism. That's all. Karl Marx is the founder of socialism, and wrote a book explaining his ideas, called The Communist Manifesto. In that book, he said that (I'm not quoting, only paraphrasing), "Yes, the nature of man is greedy. But soon, humans will rise to their potential, and work for the good of the community and country, rather than work for himself and his family." Ultimately, humans still remained greedy, and capitalism is the most widely used form of economics. A not about capitalism: It's, "leader" is/was Adam smith, who stated (another paraphrase), "In capitalism both the consumer and the seller win. The people get what they want, the vendors get however much money they want, if they make a sell. The people have more options than i social ism, and that creates competition between companies. Competition means price reductions in order to make a sale, which benefits the customer."<hr></blockquote>

Well, that was one of the least informed tirades I've seen, time to sue your world history teacher. Under socialism, Willy and Wilbur are likely to be paid exactly the same per radio. You really believe that companies make what people want? I want a Rolls Royce that does 100 miles/gallon. Unfortunately, that screws over the oil companies.

The idea under socialism is that because the people who work in a factory control it. So therefore they do make what the people want, yes?

Communism is not extreme socialism. I suggest you look at the dictionary definitions listed above to see that.

The inherent contradiction in Capitalism is that if I run a company, in order to make the most money, the most capital, it is in my interests to pay my workers as little as possible. But when I do this, the workers do not have enough money to buy the goods I am producing. This would be solved by perhaps, a minimum wage? Oh, wait, but thats a socialist idea, can't have that.

Please make sure you know what something is before debating about it.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

You are both wrong and right at the same time. Phrases, definitions, meanings, change from one place to another and depend on the political, social, personal views of the population. Just as I was correct in each of my assertions, JB is correct for where he is, and you, massy, are correct for where you are. In America, my definition of democracy holds. While where you are it seems it doesn't. We seem to be, "two peoples, separated by a common language." I think this is our major malfunction.

Well, Massy, your statement that capitalism doesn't work because a minimum wage is required is false. In a capitalist society an employer wants to get the most production from his staff with the least loss. If a 10% increase in wage will have a 5% increase in production, he will make more money (assuming the product price is high enough, or the rate of production is a large increase). Having higher wage and expecting a better work is part of the American way. If your job isn't important, you get paid little and you’re expected to do little. If you are important, they pay you better and you’re responsible to do a better job. Or you get fired and they hire someone who can do it better (Hopefully for less). In this way the company hopes to get good employees, and the employees hope to get a good pay. And since this is capitalist, if you’re not paying me enough, I’ll find another job that does.

This keeps both the work force and companies in a balance. If there is little work, companies can pay less, and expect more. However, when there is a lot of work, the companies have to pay more for the same work, just to start producing. After all, if they aren’t producing because there isn’t enough workers in the production line, the entire company starts losing even more money than if they just gave a higher salary. That is how capitalism works in the real world, and that is why it is better than both communism and socialism. (Which communism doesn’t work because it expects people to be better than they are. Quick Note: They aren’t.)

So, I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how communism would survive for any amount of time. Since in communism there is no outside motivation to strive to be better, or to increase production. As in my example of capitalism, communism doesn’t have the outside forces of product and market. Workers have no reason to choose one job over another, or to do a good job at where they are. That lowers production, which lowers sales and profits, which lowers the salaries that keep lowering production. Without greed, everyone loses. Everyone dies.

 

[Misto-Roboto]

I'm lost now. Wasn't this topic supposed to be about religion? Interesting how the topic changed. Anyways, I agree with Gamer4Fire, without greed or some form of ambitious our economic being will not improve, but will slowly hurt us. Look at China, how well do you think they are doing? (Note: Just so you knwo, the answer that question can easily found out through research, but basically they aren't a very strong goverment).

 

[JBird1203]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Gamer4Fire:
<strong>in communism there is no outside motivation to strive to be better, or to increase production. As in my example of capitalism, communism doesn’t have the outside forces of product and market. Workers have no reason to choose one job over another, or to do a good job at where they are. That lowers production, which lowers sales and profits, which lowers the salaries that keep lowering production. Without greed, everyone loses. Everyone dies.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My point exactly, Massy. Although I didn't say this, I think that I implied this in my previous message. In communism/socialism, the people are equals in salary. Just look at the root words: Commun (as in community) and social. Capitalism: capital (profit). I'll try to explain my example a little better this time.
Dean makes 40 bikes per day. Dan makes 10. They make the bikes identical to each other (no flaws on any bike). Dean is an unambiguaously better worker that Dan. Under socialism/communism, they will be paid the same wages. Therefore, Dan has NO incentive to perform as well/better than Dean, so the bike company will squander, as beatifully illustrated by G4F, above. In Capitalism, (America and most other economically thriving nations use this, so if you live in a capitalist country, pay attention to this part, because this IS how you will be paid) employees are paid on how much work they o, and how good their work is. Simply put, PAY IS BASED ON PERFORMANCE, whether it be by quality, hours worked or quantity of work finished. Therefore, the employees work for their own selves, their own pay, and rightfully so. I hope this clears things up for you, Massy. And please refrain from flaming and making accusations that I need to, "be educated" and related comments.
About what the people want: No need to act chilish here. The "Rolls Royce that does 100mi/gal" is overly utopian. Don't insult my inteligence, Massy. My people, I mean masses. I want lots of things: a Viper, a Time Machine and a mansion. But you what? There's something called AFFORDABILITY, and another thing called TECHNOLOGY. Often times, there's neither of those to what people beg/wish/deire for.
BTW- you know that Marylin Vos Sant from the, "PARADE" section of the sunday papers (in the U.S., at least)? Anyways, she has one o the highest I.Q.'s in the world, and answers all kinds of questions: one of us should ask her about this communism debate, and see what she has to say.

<small>[ February 18, 2002, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: JBird1203 ]</small>

 

[Canis lupus]

I just thought I'd voice my thoughts - I haven't read all the posts (forgive me for that), and I appologize in advance if anyone find my words offensive - I do not wish to offend.

I am usually not very radical in regard to religion - religion does not take a great foothold in my life, but I do have my thoughts.

I observe Christianity subjectively. My grandmother is a Christian to an almost fanatical degree. I remember most distinctively when a bunch of young missionaries walked up to her and she asked, "what's your Bible quote of the day?" The missionaries, bemused, gave her a lopsided smile, not knowing what to say. I must also say that my grandmother desperately needs moral and psychological support - and that is exactly what I view religion as, mental support. In fact, in history, during the middle ages (when living conditions were poor for peasants and nobles alike) people turned to Christianity as a gateway for salvation - a gateway to heaven, the land they believe to be a paradise from the hard lives they had. The middle ages was when Christianity was in full bloom, reflecting the fact that it was mainly for the mentally weak.

I see life as a much simpler entity without religion. Why bother to be bound by rules when you can enjoy life the way it is? Happiness is all that matters. And I must point out that historically Christianity is the most bloody-stained religion - the crusade, the inquisition, all those things that reflect human cruelity. I really don't see how that is "helping people" and "saving the world from evil" - they commit evil themselves. And all those priests (heck, you can even look at the modern arch-bishops and pope) - they are living in grease, filthy rich when they have sworn to not submit to greed and retain poverty. A Christian might dismiss me as "unspiritual and unenlightened", well I see them as self-righteous, using their beloved god to shield them from the consequences of their wrongdoing and justifying actions (such as the inquisition and crusade) by saying "god said so". No, I am not a cold-blooded empirical math freak with no emotions. I find comfort on my own, and I believe nature is a better source for comfort - nature as in "letting things flow the way it is". Speaking of nature, I just remembered another facet of Christianity - they are so Humano-centric; Man is the measure, god created man to rule over all brute creation - I detest the idea because I believe that violates nature (natures as in earth AND also "the way things flow").

BTW plz do not misterpret my message: I am no environmental romanticist, though I love the outdoors (not sports, just the wild).

Now, regarding the off topic issue of Communism vs Capitalism, I have a strong stand on that. As most of you know, I grew up in Taiwan as an expatriate (and have grown attached to the island in the process) and seriously Politics is a big mess over here. I can give you one of the many essays I've written regarding the topic. Oh - I can tell you, I have delved into that topic so much that I know about the politics here better than most locals. It's the ultimate battle between Capitalism/Democracy and Communism. China threatens to gobble up Taiwan any day - but the two sides are on such different economic/moral levels that they fail to relate to each other in any way. The communist Chinese say to the Taiwanese: "We are all people of the great 'Middle Kingdom'" *pukes*. Have you ever heard Brits/Aussies/Kiwies (New Zealanders) and Yanks(sorry! I'm American myself but anyways) say that they are the same? These kinds of sickening "calls to brotherhoods" are the signs of desperation - they want help, badly. Animosity results. I just gave a speech for school in fact, and I can give it to you if you want - so many amazing things about China that the "Stupid Americanoes" back home in the states are oblivious to (but who wants to read an essay? )

<small>[ February 18, 2002, 04:35 AM: Message edited by: Canis lupus ]</small>

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Ah, the Chinese. They need capitalism to expand (even their government knows it and have endorsed it to a degree) but they cannot let too much capitalism in, lest it expands too much and they lose power (and become capitalist in the process)

As for Taiwan, I thought we had an agreement to protect you guys if China ever attempted to invade. Military support and all. I might be wrong though, so don’t quote me on that.

 

[Canis lupus]

Yes, in fact, according to the Taiwan Relations Act signed in 1978, The US would be legally obliged to protect Taiwan with it's Pacific Fleet should the situations call for it, all in exchange for a large share in the Taiwanese market. And the Bush administartion supports it fully - along with the congress and American citizens who symbolically protect all of the world's democracies.

BTW, to tell you a not well known fact, China's Communist regime uses Solviet weapons equivalent to the Afghans (AK-47s and such of the likes) very outdated. Though they have the largest standing army in human history, American military analysts say they cannot successfully invade Taiwan with their outdated Aquatic Transport System to cross the seas. Taiwan has bought the most defensive weaponary in the world during the past 5 years, making them not as weak as they appear .Of course they can send a nuke to blast everything to smithereens but they want Taiwan in it's current prosperous state - not as a barren wasteland. That is the only reason why the barbarous nation has not taken action. But to think of the economical consequences of a War. It will stunt growth on both sides - China's Tomorrow will be gone, blowing their diplomacies (since, in this simulated case, they attack unprovoked). Taiwan would also suffer economically, of course...

Boy, going a bit off-topic aren't we ? not that I mind...

<small>[ February 18, 2002, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Canis lupus ]</small>

 

[Massy]

Let me address these point by point.

"Dean makes 40 bikes per day. Dan makes 10. They make the bikes identical to each other (no flaws on any bike). Dean is an unambiguaously better worker that Dan. Under socialism/communism, they will be paid the same wages."

Read what I said. They are paid the same per bike. Additionally, why should money have to be the only incentive to work?

"And please refrain from flaming and making accusations that I need to, "be educated" and related comments."

I haven't even approached flaming. You asserted something incorrectly "Communism is an extreme form of Socialism." which it is not. Therefore, you need to be told what they actually mean. It was not a comment on your intelligence, merely that you got something wrong.

"The "Rolls Royce that does 100mi/gal" is overly utopian. Don't insult my inteligence, Massy."

That was a hyperbolic example, but the fact remains that the internal combustion engine is a completely obsolete design, about 20% efficient at best. Why has a better car not been invented? Because there is no monetary incentive to do so for the companies. The technology exists, and it is affordable, but runs completely in the face of the interests of big business.

"BTW- you know that Marylin Vos Sant from the, "PARADE" section of the sunday papers (in the U.S., at least)? Anyways, she has one o the highest I.Q.'s in the world, and answers all kinds of questions: one of us should ask her about this communism debate, and see what she has to say."

Well, not living in the US, I don't read US papers, but I've heard of her. Thing is, IQ is not applicable here. Napoleon repotedly had one of the highest IQs in History, yet I doubt very much that he Aside from the fact that it is impossible to find out an IQ exactly, IQ tests deal mainly with puzzle solving and non-verbal reasoning.

And onto Gamer...

"You are both wrong and right at the same time. Phrases, definitions, meanings, change from one place to another and depend on the political, social, personal views of the population. Just as I was correct in each of my assertions, JB is correct for where he is, and you, massy, are correct for where you are. In America, my definition of democracy holds. While where you are it seems it doesn't. We seem to be, "two peoples, separated by a common language." I think this is our major malfunction."

Thing is, without any common terms, a discussion is ****ed near impossible to hold. Indeed, our major malfunction. (Reminds me of FMJ, but I digress.)

" If your job isn't important, you get paid little and you’re expected to do little. If you are important, they pay you better and you’re responsible to do a better job. Or you get fired and they hire someone who can do it better (Hopefully for less). In this way the company hopes to get good employees, and the employees hope to get a good pay. And since this is capitalist, if you’re not paying me enough, I’ll find another job that does."

Nice idea, but it rarely holds. The people who make the world go round are at the bottom. The people who pick up your garbage are possibly the most indispensable people in society, like nurses and teachers. They get paid peanuts. Who gets paid the most? The lawyers, and the CEOs. Possibly the most *capable* people, but definitely not the most important. Usually these people were themselves born into rich families that could afford the good education to get them the top jobs. It is not a meritocracy, it is a plutocracy.

Also, the capitalist system runs on boom and bust. If its a boom, great, you *can* find another company who will pay you better. But now? In the deepest recession of the last 30 years? Have fun. Your company can squeeze every last drop out of you because they know and you know that its better than being unemployed.

"So, I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how communism would survive for any amount of time. Since in communism there is no outside motivation to strive to be better, or to increase production. As in my example of capitalism, communism doesn’t have the outside forces of product and market. Workers have no reason to choose one job over another, or to do a good job at where they are. That lowers production, which lowers sales and profits, which lowers the salaries that keep lowering production. Without greed, everyone loses. Everyone dies."

You forget, in a socialist system there *are* no profits, money made by the factory is put back into the factory. The reason workers choose another job over another is because they enjoy it more, or feel it suits their skills. The incentive to do well in their job is through self-fulfilment. Most people need work to be truly happy. This *is* Utopian, it is the final destination, hence why the interim period of socialism.

And breifly onto Canis...

"along with the congress and American citizens who symbolically protect all of the world's democracies."

Aaah, like they did with Chile, then.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Canis lupus:
<strong>China's Communist regime uses Solviet weapons equivalent to the Afghans (AK-47s and such of the likes) very outdated.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">FYI: The Afghan AK-47 is the soviet AK-47. During the Soviet invasion, the US and Britain sent them aid in the form of weapons. And to keep it from looking like we were helping, we sent them Soviet made Nato weapons. The same they could have taken off of the dead Soviet corpses on the battle fields.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Massy:
<strong>IQ tests deal mainly with puzzle solving and non-verbal reasoning.

</strong>Huh? No, IQ tests for general knowledge accross all fields. I've taken a few, there is almost no problem solving involved. You either know it or you don't.<strong>

Nice idea, but it rarely holds. The people who make the world go round are at the bottom. The people who pick up your garbage are possibly the most indispensable people in society, like nurses and teachers. They get paid peanuts.-

</strong>Hold it. I don't know about Europe, but in the good old U.S. of A. the garbage men are part of a union. They get benifits, a pretty cushy job, and are paid very well compared to other jobs.<strong>

-Who gets paid the most? The lawyers, and the CEOs. Possibly the most *capable* people, but definitely not the most important. Usually these people were themselves born into rich families that could afford the good education to get them the top jobs. It is not a meritocracy, it is a plutocracy.

</strong>They also own the company, or help the people who do. Since they own the company, all the profits go to them. And since to make a profit you have to be a good CEO in the first place, they earn their money. Yes it is kind of disproportional to, say, the line worker. But he doesn't have to keep the company in the black, the CEO does. Part of capitalism, you make the money; you can do what you want with it. Expand the company, build a mansion, get a bunch of it in thousand dollar bills and roll around in it or give your employees a raise. Yours to do with as you please, after, you make it.

As for lawyers, their blood sucking parasites and that's how they make their money. I don't want them grouped with the rest of the... anybody.<strong>

Also, the capitalist system runs on boom and bust. If its a boom, great, you *can* find another company who will pay you better. But now? In the deepest recession of the last 30 years? Have fun. Your company can squeeze every last drop out of you because they know and you know that its better than being unemployed.

</strong>Your point? When the reccesion is over it will be the opposite. It all balances out. Those that can't make it, natural selection. You can't have it good all the time, you have to take the bad times with them.<strong>

You forget, in a socialist system there *are* no profits, money made by the factory is put back into the factory. The reason workers choose another job over another is because they enjoy it more, or feel it suits their skills. The incentive to do well in their job is through self-fulfilment. Most people need work to be truly happy. This *is* Utopian, it is the final destination, hence why the interim period of socialism.

</strong>HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, sure. *snicker* People have to work to be happy. HAH! People want to work to be happy. What a joke. What idealist sweatshop did you crawl out of? People are lazy. They will try to do as little as possible while getting the most out of it. Only a very few people have the drive and inner ego to do better than everyone else because they can. And few others do the job well because they enjoy it. Happy worker = Hard worker. Your fulfillment is felt when I get my paycheck. The work up to it, was just that, work.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

<small>[ February 18, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Gamer4Fire ]</small>

 

[Canis lupus]

Like Chile made 40% of the world's computer chips? and 91% of the world's scanners? 33% of the world's computer monitors? forgive me those are not accurate figures, but pretty darn close. Your right, America wants her share of profit - that's what she's doing, meddling with both sides of the market while keeping the peace.

<small>[ February 18, 2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Canis lupus ]</small>

 

[Massy]

"Like Chile made 40% of the world's computer chips? and 91% of the world's scanners? 33% of the world's computer monitors? forgive me those are not accurate figures, but pretty darn close. Your right, America wants her share of profit - that's what she's doing, meddling with both sides of the market while keeping the peace."

I meant when the government "symbolically protecting all the worlds democracies" overthrew the democratically elected government and replaced it with an opressive miliatary dictatorship.

 

[Massy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"IQ tests deal mainly with puzzle solving and non-verbal reasoning."

Huh? No, IQ tests for general knowledge accross all fields. I've taken a few, there is almost no problem solving involved. You either know it or you don't.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Doesn't really matter, my point was that IQ is of little importance in a socio-political discussion, which it is not. Even someone with an IQ of 60 can have an opinion.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Nice idea, but it rarely holds. The people who make the world go round are at the bottom. The people who pick up your garbage are possibly the most indispensable people in society, like nurses and teachers. They get paid peanuts."

Hold it. I don't know about Europe, but in the good old U.S. of A. the garbage men are part of a union. They get benifits, a pretty cushy job, and are paid very well compared to other jobs.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Be that as it may, they are among the most important people in society, yet are not among the best paid. The idea that the most useful jobs pay the highest is moronic. Look at professional sports players for example.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Who gets paid the most? The lawyers, and the CEOs. Possibly the most *capable* people, but definitely not the most important. Usually these people were themselves born into rich families that could afford the good education to get them the top jobs. It is not a meritocracy, it is a plutocracy."

They also own the company, or help the people who do. Since they own the company, all the profits go to them. And since to make a profit you have to be a good CEO in the first place, they earn their money. Yes it is kind of disproportional to, say, the line worker. But he doesn't have to keep the company in the black, the CEO does. Part of capitalism, you make the money; you can do what you want with it. Expand the company, build a mansion, get a bunch of it in thousand dollar bills and roll around in it or give your employees a raise. Yours to do with as you please, after, you make it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually, in most companies the shareholders own it, but never mind. I've already addressed why the cream doesn't rise to the top. An example of the inequality inherent in the system of Capital is thus: A CEO makes lots of money. He then re-invests this capital into an excellent education for his children. His children then get top jobs, regardless of their natural aptitude for them, as opposed to someone raised in the ghettos.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As for lawyers, their blood sucking parasites and that's how they make their money. I don't want them grouped with the rest of the... anybody.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You can't just write off people because you don't like them. The fact is that lawyers make lots of money despite not being all that necessary.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"Also, the capitalist system runs on boom and bust. If its a boom, great, you *can* find another company who will pay you better. But now? In the deepest recession of the last 30 years? Have fun. Your company can squeeze every last drop out of you because they know and you know that its better than being unemployed."

Your point? When the reccesion is over it will be the opposite. It all balances out. Those that can't make it, natural selection. You can't have it good all the time, you have to take the bad times with them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Aaah, Social Darwinism. A theory championed by among others, Herbert Spencer. The main requirement for being a believer in this philosophy is to not give a **** about other humans, as you'd just laugh at the homeless and say "they weren't as fit and therefore deserve to die."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"You forget, in a socialist system there *are* no profits, money made by the factory is put back into the factory. The reason workers choose another job over another is because they enjoy it more, or feel it suits their skills. The incentive to do well in their job is through self-fulfilment. Most people need work to be truly happy. This *is* Utopian, it is the final destination, hence why the interim period of socialism."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, sure. *snicker* People have to work to be happy. HAH! People want to work to be happy. What a joke. What idealist sweatshop did you crawl out of? People are lazy. They will try to do as little as possible while getting the most out of it. Only a very few people have the drive and inner ego to do better than everyone else because they can. And few others do the job well because they enjoy it. Happy worker = Hard worker. Your fulfillment is felt when I get my paycheck. The work up to it, was just that, work."

Think about it. (Go on.) Why do children of rich parents go to work? They sure as **** don't *need* to for the money. People work primarily for money, yes, but without work everyone becomes ****ing bored ****ing quickly. Someone far more intelligent than I said "A man needs two things to be happy, love and work." If I could remember who it was, I'd be rather happy.

And then we get to the crux of the matter. You believe that people are basically lazy and selfish and working entirely for their own gain. Until we learn to co-operate, the chances of us ever achieving a society we can be proud are absolutely NIL. Humans must strive to transcend their more "natural" impulses, rather than base an entire society around them.

<small>[ February 18, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]</small>

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The shareholders get their share, too. But any competent CEO would only sell 49% of his company in the first place.

As for rich folk investing in their kids, not always. Some people are just too dense, no matter the money you invest into them, to do anything. You need at least something to start out with in the first place.

And we still seem to be an idealist. People keep their jobs because they want more money, and require security over what they do have. Check Maslows Hierarchy of Needs for more detail.

As for the need to be better, how do you suggest we keep the unselfish while suppressing the ignorant, or the ones who cant't/won't control themselves? Kill them? Only people who are X may live? How do we do this? Kill them before birth? Keep the parents from breeding? What we have now isn't perfect. Never was, probably never will be. But we try to make the best out of what we have, not change everyone to suit our utopia. The last person who tried that got his butt whipped. Adolf Hitler and his insane experiments to create the aryan nation, the perfect nation failed. And all these churches may try their best to instill their view of what is perfect has only created war and havoc. You try to create your perfect people. And when you try to conquer the would, you egomaniac, us imperfect people will show you how it's done. Straight to.

By the way, what is your view on the suppression of school bullies and the zero tolerance of fighting in school?

 

[JBird1203]

Massy: One more point: this discussion is not an opionated one (you said something like, "Even someone with an I.Q. of 60 has an opinion." I understand that, but an opinion is non applicable in the discussion we're having. I'll just let you think that way. I'm already tired of this argument: it would go on FOREVER. To answer G4F's question:

I don't agree with the suppresion of bullies at schools, to a degree. I think that a school is best defined as, "preparation for the next level," whether it be high school, college or beyond. You're bound to have people that want to challenge you in your later years, so by eliminating completely the, "bullies" is asinine. By doing that, when the kids grow up and face a similar similation, they wouldn't know what to do. But let's say a kid says, "I'm bringing a gun to school tomorrow, an I'll kill some people. You're on my hit list," then the kid gets expelled, no questions asked. But let the fist fights happen for a little while before the administration breaks it up.

<small>[ February 19, 2002, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: JBird1203 ]</small>

 

[yo]

What the.....? I think the supresion of bullies is ok, you know, when a little kid is getting his *** whipped by a stronger one, ok its getting prepared for the "next level" but if the punishment from the bullie is also psychological (you know like saying things like: you fat ******* and a lot more) you know for a child that can be traumathic, I think that makes the killers of tomorrow, children that suffered a lot, when adults are angry at the world (no, I havent been seeing to much hbo), also the bullies will be unhappy when adults when they see there are people stronger than them, they just wont be able to accept it, they probably became frustrated and so on.... tell me since when violence in any way is good?????????

 

[JBird1203]

Well, Yo, I see what you mean. I think that this is all age depending. For elementary school, the administration should be strict (but not zero tolerance), and as the kids get older, become a little more lenient. For the record, I was picked on (for my size) and I think that all of the, "small fry," "shrimp" and, "short" comments said straight to my face ended up making me a stronger and better person today.

 

[Omega Virus]

this seams like a nice lil forum how is every1 <img border="0" alt="[Devil]" title="" src="graemlins/demon.gif" />

 

[Misto-Roboto]

What ever happen to the original topic? Why are we talking about govermental issues? Is this supposed to lead somewhere in the subject of the topic? If so, can we please get to it?

 

[yo]

Well I think I missed the pages where the topic changed (think is the 4), Anyway I agree with that JBird of being strict at the begining and then let them solve their own problems, also Its good you became a better person from all those comments but I heard of people that didt do so good...

 

[Omega Virus]

<img border="0" alt="[Devil]" title="" src="graemlins/demon.gif" /> u people are sick <img border="0" alt="[Devil]" title="" src="graemlins/demon.gif" />

 

[Massy]

JBird - It would be nice to think that a discussion like this is not opinionated. But that would be wrong. If it were not, we would agree on everything, since as the same set of data is available to us. We differ in our interpretation of this data, due to our opinions.

Yes, the debate will go on forever, until we get bored. Its become less about persuasion and more about verbal sparring.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As for rich folk investing in their kids, not always. Some people are just too dense, no matter the money you invest into them, to do anything. You need at least something to start out with in the first place.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sometimes yes, but throw enough money at an average person and you can make them at least competent.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And we still seem to be an idealist. People keep their jobs because they want more money, and require security over what they do have. Check Maslows Hierarchy of Needs for more detail.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">People do need work. Some people may enjoy what they do, some people may loathe it, But overall, people need to work.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As for the need to be better, how do you suggest we keep the unselfish while suppressing the ignorant, or the ones who cant't/won't control themselves? Kill them? Only people who are X may live? How do we do this? Kill them before birth? Keep the parents from breeding? What we have now isn't perfect. Never was, probably never will be. But we try to make the best out of what we have, not change everyone to suit our utopia.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Erm, don't get me wrong here, but you were the one talking about, I quote: "Those that can't make it, natural selection."

I was saying we should attempt to bring out the best aspects of people, encourage co-operation rather than building a society based around the worst aspects of humanity (greed) or getting rid of those displaying those aspects. Eugenics is not good.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The last person who tried that got his butt whipped. Adolf Hitler and his insane experiments to create the aryan nation, the perfect nation failed. And all these churches may try their best to instill their view of what is perfect has only created war and havoc. You try to create your perfect people. And when you try to conquer the would, you egomaniac, us imperfect people will show you how it's done. Straight to.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Calm down there, and remove the crack pipe from your lips. That's good. I'll disregard this paragraph, as quite frankly it's bull****. And please don't claim credit for the defeat of Hitler again.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">By the way, what is your view on the suppression of school bullies and the zero tolerance of fighting in school?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I've never believed in "Those that can't make it, natural selection." applying to society. Punish bullies, stop fighting. End.

<small>[ February 19, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]</small>

 

[Gamer4Fire]

People need something to do, that might not be work. That's why people have hobbies and old people play shuffle board. When was the last time you heard of shuffle board being called work?

And I don't think the average person could be made competent. It takes an inner spark, a "something" to start from. If he doesn't have it in him in the first place, no amount of money or work could help.

Natural selection is not genocide. We let them die, not go out and kill them. Cooperation is good and all, but you need a good foundation to start with. Capitalism and natural selection almost ensures it by its very nature. Socialism and communism don't.

As for Hitler, are you taking credit for that then? And I take offense to the crack pipe comment, by the way.

As for the line: "Punish bullies, stop fighting. End." um? COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE PLEASE?

 

[Massy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">People need something to do, that might not be work. That's why people have hobbies and old people play shuffle board. When was the last time you heard of shuffle board being called work?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No. People need work. If we define a person's goal in life to be happy, we are getting close to the point here. Because what makes people happy, what is their 'reward' for doing anything good for the community? The materialistic-capitalistic idea is that material wealth is what makes people happy - and only that. The question assumes the same - if people don't get money and more food, why bother to work more?
Why did Linus Torvald start working on Linux if he was planning on giving it away? A sense of community. Personal prestige.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And I don't think the average person could be made competent. It takes an inner spark, a "something" to start from. If he doesn't have it in him in the first place, no amount of money or work could help.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">A judgement call, I guess. Nothing to be debated other than "I disagree."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Natural selection is not genocide. We let them die, not go out and kill them. Cooperation is good and all, but you need a good foundation to start with. Capitalism and natural selection almost ensures it by its very nature. Socialism and communism don't.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Natural selection isn't genocide, but eugenics. How do you stop the weak producing more weak offspring?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As for Hitler, are you taking credit for that then? And I take offense to the crack pipe comment, by the way.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No, ironically I feel I owe my freedom to that lovely chap Stalin. And I took offence to being called an egomaniac with conquest on my mind.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As for the line: "Punish bullies, stop fighting. End." um? COULD YOU PLEASE ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE PLEASE?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Whats to say? People should not be allowed to piss on other people's lives because they're higher up the social ladder, or taller, or whatever. And stop fights because, well, violence is generally crap.

 

[Massy]

Oh, as to Captitalism being "Natural" This reasoning is faulty. Read the following paragraph:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">"**** is an integral and necessary expression of human nature. Sexual assaults have been present in every society since the dawn of time. It is the drive of man to reproduce, to compete successfully for advantage on the battlefield of life and evolution. In fact, it is this very competition to reproduce that motivates man to do anything productive and worthwhile in the first place. It is this competition that motivates man to aspire to greatness. Can you imagine men striving for greatness were they not motivated by their drive to reproduce by any means? Of course not, because the drive to reproduce is at the very core of mankind's essence! As long as we disregard silly 'god' superstitions and recognize that a man is ultimately responsible to and for himself, we therefore recognize that any measures that attempt to stifle this natural and inherent drive to reproduce by any means are inherently wrong. To stifle sexual assaults is the perverse anti-human dream of the superstitious or a bloated priestly class, or the self-promoted intelligentsia, which of course is both of these at the same time. In fact, no human society has successfully eliminated ****, despite myriad measures designed to curb sexual assaults. If man were only truly free to pursue this integral part of his nature we would walk as the masters of the Earth that we are!"</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now, anyone will see that this is a glaringly faulty and dangerous chain of reasoning. Just because the drive to reproduce is inherent in humans, and because sexual assault and **** stem from that drive and are a part of human nature and an expression of that nature, and because every society has had sexual assault and none has successfully eliminated ****, that doesn't necessarily mean that sexual assault and **** are good things that should be encouraged, or that there wouldn't be disastrous and apocalyptic consequences were people given carte blanche to ****.

Now, reread the paragraph and replace every occurrence of the words 'sexual assault' with the words 'free markets', replace every occurrence of '****' with 'capitalism,' and every occurrence of the word 'reproduce' with 'acquire wealth.'

Be aware that I am not equating Capitalism to ****, but pointing out some flawed reasoning.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Are you pointing out your own flawed reasoning?

People don't need work be happy. If your measurement of how happy a person is by how much they work, you are nuts. You cannot, yet still try, to give that broad definition of happiness to everyone. Some people's life is their family. Being with their family, playing with their kids, being a good spouse, etc. They have no ambition to change the world, yet they are very happy. Other people are happy when they get their paychecks; the fruition of their labor brings them happiness. Not the work leading up to it.

Eugenics is the forced (?) mating of a species (humans?) to create better stronger offspring, and the forced celibacy of the weak. I don't see how this compares with natural selection, which is just the death of the weak and the continuation of the strong through natural forces. We do the same with plants but destroy the offspring instead.

Stalin? We conned Hitler into attacking Stalin. Played him like a cheap fiddle. Hitler broke the non-aggression pact and we got Stalin into the war. The U.S. won the war, and helped rebuild you afterwards. Don’t forget that.

As for bullies, the two “chaps†before us, Jbird and Yo, had more of a conversation than you are supplying.

On to the rapists. Most men don’t **** women over procreation; it is done as a show of power and force. “I can do this and there is nothing you can do about it.†It is ego that makes men do that. Even if the same drive can be applied to capitalism, it doesn’t make it wrong. Some of the things that you quoted were correct, some wrong. It isn’t all one sided as you want to lead us to believe.

Capitalism is a great driving force. Ambition, “I’m better than youâ€, ego, etc. When it is pointed in a direction that helps society, or when it is regulated so that the individual doesn’t get screwed over (Constitution, United States of America; was created to help do this) society can grow. We are not the last standing super power because we wanted only for society. We are number one because we wanted to be better than the rest, better than the best. You can’t get that out of socialism. Necessity is the mother of invention, and adversity is the key to growth. Socialism denies that, capitalism forces it. When faced with adversity, your are forced to succeed, succeed or die.

Now, before you pervert capitalism any more with another **** story (Similar branches, different effects), why don’t we expand this discussion some? There has to be more that you want to talk about, since you effectively dodged my â€school bullies†discussion.

 

[yo]

Whew finally someone got all the subtopics all together, now I can responde to them all(thanx G4F)...
Ok for the work-happines thing Ive got a little story (Im gona paraphrase):a king obviously very rich and with all his necesities covered and obviously with no need for work was very unhappy he felt so shalow and his life without a real meaning, he thought: Im gona look for the happiest man on my kingdom and ask him for his shirt, maybe that way Ill be happy too. After months of search his soldiers informed him that theyve found the happiest man so he went to see him, the happiest man was a (dont know the english word but is the guy that cuts trees with an axe) and he had no shirt, and worked all day long, he had a nice family, the king asked him why was he so happy? and he answered that he didnt know he was just so happy when after a long hard day at work he could be with his family and hug them...... the king returned to his castle with no shirt and tryied to change to become happy.

For the natural selection: some scientifics say that we may not evolve any more because evolution needs an adaptation of envioronment, wich humans have changed for big coats (in antartica) or space suites (in the moon) we do not need to adapte anymore we just do special clothes...also evolution needs separation I mean no mixes between african-european for example because that homogenizes the specie instead of separating it...also competition with predators wich the human has no predator... so anyways other scientifics say we can keep evolving but maybe in other ways like dna manipulation....

For Hitler and Stalin were just two power ambitious and we know what that leads to.... wars

On the ****, men do it because they know they will never score with that super hot girl, so they **** her, when have you heard about a **** to a totally ugly woman? also is not for procreation, if someone gets ***** she just do abort, why having the baby of that sick *******? Also capithalism and socialism arent perfect but thats just the way it is, but its true that capithalism promotes the good ideas: if you have an amazing idea youll be rich!!!!!!!!!!!

Aaaaaaand I think thats all, thanx for reading <img border="0" alt="[Chuckle]" title="" src="graemlins/chuckle.gif" />

 

[Gamer4Fire]

What was the moral of the story with the woodcutter/lumberjack/whatever? Family is happiness? Killing trees is hapiness? (Just joking)

Natural selection still goes on, the darwin awards brings out the best in the losers. Also, we have switched from strongest to smartest. Smart people survive, dumb people kill themselves in an ammusing way for the rest of us.

And, uh, yeah. A lot of sickos **** ugly people. A lot. Fat, old, crippled, doesn't matter. Rapists are weak and they suck. And they **** old weak ugly people. *Shudder* As I said, it's all about the power and ego. A strong women might be able to beat the crap out of them. *snicker* So, yeah. You might not hear it much, but it happens often. That's why it isn't in the news. Only when young people are *****/kidnapped do you hear about it because it's news! It doesn't happen much. (or as much)

 

[Massy]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Are you pointing out your own flawed reasoning?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Obviously. Come on, thats on a par with "I am rubber, you are glue."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">People don't need work be happy. If your measurement of how happy a person is by how much they work, you are nuts. You cannot, yet still try, to give that broad definition of happiness to everyone. Some people's life is their family. Being with their family, playing with their kids, being a good spouse, etc. They have no ambition to change the world, yet they are very happy. Other people are happy when they get their paychecks; the fruition of their labor brings them happiness. Not the work leading up to it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I pity anyone who finds happiness in a paycheck. You can't define people by their work, and no, not all people do, but most people have to work. Its an inbuilt human need, and a good one to have.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Eugenics is the forced (?) mating of a species (humans?) to create better stronger offspring, and the forced celibacy of the weak. I don't see how this compares with natural selection, which is just the death of the weak and the continuation of the strong through natural forces. We do the same with plants but destroy the offspring instead.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But how do you stop the weak reproducing?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stalin? We conned Hitler into attacking Stalin. Played him like a cheap fiddle. Hitler broke the non-aggression pact and we got Stalin into the war. The U.S. won the war, and helped rebuild you afterwards. Don’t forget that.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thats the most moronic thing you've said thus far. In fact, its the most moronic thing I've heard all week. If not month. The knowledge of History here is minute.

If any one country has the right to say "You'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for us" it's the former Soviet Union. The sacrifice they made to defeat Hitler is mind-boggling.

However, in reality, no one country can or should claim all the credit for defeating the Nazis. America's entry into the war was of course significant, but Hitler had probably already bitten off more than he could chew by violating his non-aggression pact with Stalin in the same year (1941). Also, the war might have taken a very different course had Britain not succeeded in holding out against invasion up to this point. All allied nations made a massive contribution, and although the French often get a hard time for capitulating so soon, its resistance fighters, and those of other occupied nations, also deserve massive credit.

I would suggest that importance to the result of the war should be evaluated by running a mental scenario of World War II, minus the country in question.

Scenario 1: Britain surrenders or is conquered in 1940 (aka, Hitler doesn't commit a strategic blunder by ceasing his attacks on the RAF to focus on the Blitz of London and other British cities)

Europe is now entirely occupied by the Nazis. The US no longer has any opportunity to enter the war on the European front, allowing the Nazis to consolidate their power and focus on the USSR & Africa. The latter would have fallen easily. As to the former, as was mentioned above, there is some question as to whether the USSR might not have been able to overcome the Nazis alone and unaided. This is a legitimate point, but I must point out that, first of all, Stalingrad was seen as a turning point in the war because it--and arguably, it alone--prevented the Nazis from capturing Moscow, which would have severely damaged or completely destroyed the Soviet ability to continue with the war.

Another point is that without Britain, the US would be less likely to involve themselves in the war, and so the Japanese might have chosen to open a second Soviet front rather than bombing Pearl Harbour. After all, the reason the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour was because they saw US intervention in the war--mostly on the behalf of Britain--as inevitable, and so wanted to strike first. If US intervention was no longer inevitable, the Japanese may well have focused on the USSR, instead. It seems unlikely that the USSR could have withheld the combined forces of the Germans and the Japanese.

(This is a somewhat simplified view of the situation--the Japanese would, at some point, have been forced to take on the Americans, as their eventual goal was total domination in the pacific. However, they (the Axis) could have concentrated on one foe at a time.)

Now you've got the US (well, and Canada and a few South American countries) alone against a combined German-Japanese force (assuming the two didn't self-destruct on contact), holding all of Asia, Africa, and Europe, with no shortage of natural resources.

Scenario 2: No Pearl Harbour, no US intervention, possibly no supplying the USSR & Britain?

Now you've potentially got Britain capitulating due to sheer lack of raw materials.

Even were this not the case, you've got Japan running amok in the Pacific (well, I can't see a realistic scenario in which Japan runs amok in the Pacific without American retaliation), or possibly in Russia. In either case, the damage to the Allied cause would be catastrophic.

Possibly more important, you have no significant second front in Europe in 1944, and thus, the Iron Curtain covers all of Germany, France, Italy, and Spain--all of the Continent. I wouldn't argue that Stalin was on a par with Hitler, but he was ****ing close.

Scenario 3: Hitler doesn't commit strategic suicide by attacking the USSR (though many historians figure it was only a matter of time before Stalin did the backstabbing)

All of the might of Germany concentrating on Britain and Africa. Millions of German soldiers are spared for use on the western front. Unless the US joined in early, Britain is doomed. Africa falls easily. It's possible, if the war didn't end then and there, with a good 1/3 of the world under Nazi control, that the Germans would be defeated, but surely not by 1945.

Keep in mind that, in the minds of the Germans, and in terms of sheer statistics, the much touted Second Front in the West was small potatoes--the real war was fought and lost (by the Germans) on the eastern front.

Clearly, it would seem, all three of the major Allied players were nothing short of necessary to the war effort. None were expendable. Additionally, The Chinese did not win World War II for us, but they should certainly be up there with the others cited as contributors. Estimated figures for Chinese casualties vary widely, but the death toll of regular soldiers alone measures in the millions.

Argue against that. You will fail.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As for bullies, the two “chaps†before us, Jbird and Yo, had more of a conversation than you are supplying.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Because I didn't see the debate. How does one defend bullying and fighting in school?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">On to the rapists. Most men don’t **** women over procreation; it is done as a show of power and force. “I can do this and there is nothing you can do about it.†It is ego that makes men do that. Even if the same drive can be applied to capitalism, it doesn’t make it wrong. Some of the things that you quoted were correct, some wrong. It isn’t all one sided as you want to lead us to believe.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My (simplified) point was merely that just because something is natural, and that no society has succeeded in containing it, does not mean that it is right and that we should not try to contain it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Capitalism is a great driving force. Ambition, “I’m better than youâ€, ego, etc. When it is pointed in a direction that helps society</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But that's my point, it never is. Its pointed in a direction that helps that individual.

[/quote], or when it is regulated so that the individual doesn’t get screwed over (Constitution, United States of America; was created to help do this) society can grow. We are not the last standing super power because we wanted only for society. We are number one because we wanted to be better than the rest, better than the best. You can’t get that out of socialism. Necessity is the mother of invention, and adversity is the key to growth. Socialism denies that, capitalism forces it. When faced with adversity, your are forced to succeed, succeed or die.[/quote]

But you're number one at the expense of other people. The people of Indonesia (CIA backed Suharto), the people of Cuba, the whole of South America. That isn't something I'd want to have on my conscience. Good for the US that it doesn't seem to have one.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now, before you pervert capitalism any more with another **** story (Similar branches, different effects), why don’t we expand this discussion some? There has to be more that you want to talk about, since you effectively dodged my “school bullies†discussion.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Again, I didn't see the point in the "school bullies" discussion. However, feel free to view my "A question." thread if you want.

<small>[ February 20, 2002, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Massy ]</small>

 

[Liquid Entropy]

i don't really like christians.

 

[PorCorpWis]

I don't particularly like to engage in religous discussion because I've never seen a single person change their mind during one: people are pretty much set in their ways as far as religion goes, and they are the only ones who can convince themselves of what they belive. Now matter how good of an argument someone tries to present for either "side," there will be plenty of holes in it that allow the other "side" to continue beliving as they like. It is debatable wether the human race would have been better off if religion never came into existance, but it has little effect on my immediate life, and therefore it's not worth my time to discuss. Suffice to say I am an atheist who was raised in a Christian family. I might have belived until I was three or so, until I began to see the obvious flaults in the whole thing.

I don't really have time to read the whole thread, but I'll respond to the original question. I think one of the first repliers was correct in saying that many "athiest activists" are pissed off that they've been decieved. Personally, the thing that irks me so much about religion and religious types is how Christians in general will attempt to spread (read: force) their beliefs on others, but tell athiests that they have no right to spread their "beliefs." I don't think "belief" is really the correct word for an athiest's views about the nature of existance, though. It's like saying "I belive the world is round." Religion by its nature requires a "leap of faith," a suspention of disbelief, a willingness to let your faith override all evidence to the contrary. Many take this so far as to integrate it into the basic way in which they look at the world, such that the notion of disbelief becomes as absurd to them as the notion of believing is to the athiest. This is why debate is a waste of time. It's like banging two rocks together.

P.S. I read a little more of the replies on page one since I was bored. I'd just like to say that many of the athiests here have little understanding of religion, but nearly all of the christians here have little understanding of science. I'm convinced that many of you just know the gist of verious scientific theories and proclaim them stupid because you don't understand them. Isn't that a bit hipocritical, when you stand accusing the athiests of not liking religion because they don't understand it? As for those who belive that there needs to be some overall force directing things because without it there would have been only an infinitesimal chance of us existing: that's simply not true. Learn about what you speak before you make such rediculous assumptions.

<small>[ February 24, 2002, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: PorCorpWis ]</small>

 

[Etched in a Box]

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> It is debatable wether the human race would have been better off if religion never came into existance </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There's no doubt in my mind. Religion serves as just another means of making oneself "better" than others. Maybe we could have Christians and Jews and Muslims working together to progress the human race, but they seem more bent on spreading their beliefs. Sure there are those with only good intentions, but religion breeds fundies, and fundies inspire hate and violence.

This wouldn't be a matter of concern had we not been consistently spreading age-old fairy tales to our offspring. One generation, one generation is all I ask for that we do not do this. How hard can it be to realize that the concept of God relies on you for nourishment, not the other way around? I was born an atheist. We all were. And as I have been told, had I not been told about Christ then my going to heaven would be based solely on what kind of person I was like. Then why tell me about Christ in the first place? It only lowers my chances of going to heaven.

 

[Marc Hobbs]

Well at least we've decided it might be fun to get back to the original topic. And I needed to test my new sig/avatar. <img border="0" alt="[Laugh]" title="" src="graemlins/laugh.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Dizzy]" title="" src="graemlins/dizzy.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Crazy]" title="" src="graemlins/crazy.gif" /> <img border="0" alt="[Freak]" title="" src="graemlins/freak.gif" />

 

[game and kirby]

I'm going straight back to the first post, everyone. The main problem I have with proselytizing is that it's not admirable. People trying their best to persuade people to their way of thinking, using any method possible (for examples, see the crusades, and why missionaries go to washed up African hobos and convert them in their hour of desperation.) is not really what I call noble. I try to convert noone . If someone says he's christian, to me it's like 'vanilla or chocolate?' I only tell religious people the error of their ways when they try to debate, using baseless religious texts as evidence. Or , of course, saying idiocies like 'wel Jesus luvs me and im gouing to hevven and ur all goung tzo ****.' That is simply an example of religious idiocy. Of course, there is the other spectrum, where atheists regard anyone who makes a passing mention to their faith as 'bible hugging morons who can't tell a ******* from their own ***!' that is equally unacceptable. Religion is a crutch for the weak of mind. To accept that when you die, that's it, no light at the end of the tunnel , takes willpower, a keen mind to fully comprehend it, and a good distance between yourself and your instincts. An atheist's journey is one more arduous than any religious journey , because there is no reprieve at the end of the road. There is no enlightening, blissful truth to be found. The stark, harsh truth is underlying all life, and an atheists journey isn't an uphill path to god. It's getting down on all fours to pry up the floorboards everyone else craps on.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

missionaries: most evil people on earth

well of course that's an exaggeration. But in my eyes, missionarying as a profession is probably one of the WORST jobs out there, morality-wise. But I of course don't hold it against people. In their eyes, it is very just because they truly believe they are saving people from eternal ****ation.

And to answer Etched in a Box from many months ago-

this is a guess, but I imagine the people tell you about Christ because the Bible tells them to, and because they believe that all people are born sinners so of course if God judges you based on your life you will certainly be dam-ned. At least if they tell you about Jesus there's a chance that you will convert and at least have that chance of getting into Heaven. This is all guessing. Just another silly nonsensical Christian line of reasoning I realize, but it's the way it works.

-B

 

[Kokichi]

this is a guess, but I imagine the people tell you about Christ because the Bible tells them to, and because they believe that all people are born sinners so of course if God judges you based on your life you will certainly be dam-ned. At least if they tell you about Jesus there's a chance that you will convert and at least have that chance of getting into Heaven. This is all guessing. Just another silly nonsensical Christian line of reasoning I realize, but it's the way it works.

Actually the 2 basic things for getting into "heaven" is to
a) be Xian
b) Thank God for sacraficing Jesus

Sins actually DONT MATTER. I still laugh at people who think if they sin then God will not let them go to Heaven. Guess they didn't pay as much attention on Sunday as they should have, huh? ****, people can do whatever the f*** they want to, and all they have to do is call themselves Xian and aknowldege the mortyr of Jesus. Adolf Hitler was an Xian, killed all those Jews, Xians don't believe that he is in Heaven but he IS (if there is such thing). What a werid little cult...

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

I know

I know. The question was, why do people missionary when if someone hasn't heard the word of god then they are judged not by the usual standards but instead on the lfie they lead (in the view of some christians, this is true).

I was merely saying this logic doesn't work because Christians tend to believe we all are sinners and thus nobody leads a righteous life and if they were left to be judged on their life people would always be ****ed. At least if they are told about Jesus there is a miniscule chance that they will convert, and that's still better than the nonexistent chance that they will be righteous enough.

-B