Why there is no God [Archive]

Zero

5th December 2006, 09:18

Originally posted by "communism for the uk"+--> ("communism for the uk")1)According to God - worshipers, God is willing to help mankind, because God is a good-natured being.[/b]According to religious dogma; yes. According to Philosophical interpretation of infinite entities; no.

90% of theists who attempt to rationalize their irrational belief in entities beyond the grasp of our mind (which, thankfully for them, they can still conceptualize when we don't ask questions) will argue from what is known mostly as the "Liberal Theologian" standpoint. Which is just basically the argument of Creationism + Evolution - Dogma. Some brave few (Michael Behe for instance) take it one step further and deny Macro-Evolution. Though that is about as far as theists have gotten.

Most Liberal Theologians will use loosely-based scientific arguments (where did matter come from, what came before the 'Big Bang', what is matter made of, etc) to justify dragging you through the muddle of proving and disproving the existence of absolutes in the theoretical realm. That exercise in and of itself is self-defeating anyway, since Atheists cannot believe in absolutes and Theists have to believe in absolutes.

Originally posted by "communism for the uk"@
2)He is also all-powerfull, so he can do whatever he wants.Not quite. He is an absolute (absolute knowledge, absolute understanding, absolute authority, absolute absolute.) Therefore "he" (which is really a misnomer, since the body cannot be perfected, but it can be improved upon, thus not eternal, thus not perfect, thus not suitable for a perfect entity.) doesn't just have the ability to "do whatever he wants" but he is everything he wants, and if you believe in Time as a dimension, he is everything past present and future. Though as you get farther and farther into the realms of philosophical debate on pseudo-scientific Quantum-Theory projections of alternate dimensions, timelines, "laws of chance" etc you will find that your debate starts sounding more and more like a rather long-winded Chuck Norris joke.

"communism for the uk"
3)There is suffering and injustice in the world.As this cannot be explained through dogma, and it cannot be rationalized through a sort of "learning your worth as tools for the ultimate power" for the Liberal Theologians, this is where the 'God Chaos' theory comes in. Basically stating that God created everything, and is just watching over us like a pre-teen and his new ant colony.

I'm just waiting for God's big brother to come into his room at night and flip the universe upside down. <_<

Qwerty Dvorak

5th December 2006, 18:24

Zero, I believe this is an argument against established religion's view of God.

One of the main problems with the church's belief system is in my view, the one expressed in the first post. Christians can say that God does not want to interfere with human free will, but one wonders, why did God allow the free will (namely the will to live) of those in the concentration camps to be interfered with by the Nazis? Or to refer to the tsunami analogy, how do you account for the fact that the will to live of those living in Asia was interfered with in 2004?

Christians can say God actually has a 'master plan' of which all this suffering is a part, but surely if God is, as the religions claim, both benevolent and all-powerful, he can erase human suffering and create a utopia without resorting to the horrors we have witnessed in the past?

Zero

5th December 2006, 20:35

Listen, the very last thing you need to worry about is established religion and dogmatic rhetoric. Increasingly in the public eye (muchless academia) structured dogmatic thinking has been on the decline; even here in the United States. Dogmatic parents are increasingly sending thier children to private schools to be fed horse shit because they recognise secularism as a very powerful force. Dogmatism being put aside for rational analysis. This is why anti-secular movements of dogmatic thinkers are attacking secular school systems; because they rightly see it as a threat. Just watch and wait as their arguements get smashed :lol: .

However the conscious party hasn't begun quite yet. Increasingly Liberal Theologians are using gaps in scientific data to justify irrational belief. In some parts this analysis is almost believable. This is the force to be concerned about. For the most part scientific evidence still provides a foundation for life. However until we have a clear view of matter, genetics, time, absolutes, and other such notions these Liberal Theologians will always have a method of arguement. Of course they are completely baseless, and have no room in rational thought; but some of these proponents of a sort of 'Elastic God' that just so happens to fit around all evidence presented appeal to the less-educated, less-inclined, and less-motivated elements of political society. Jesusradicals.com for instance.

In time dogma will disprove itself; there is already quite a few (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html) incongruencies with the Bible. in the Quran (http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/), in the Torah (http://dim.com/~randl/tcont.htm)... These are not large forces to worry about other than in the 3rd world, in the 1st world all we have to do is maintain the spread of secularism, and attack the Liberal Theologist conclusions of "mysticism" and "soul force", and other such nonsense.

jasmine

5th December 2006, 22:26

Why is the dichotomy God or No God valid?

Are there just two possibilities? Either an all-knowing spiritual being exists or when we die we are dust, the lights go out.

Is it possible that when we die the lights don't go out but there is no God?

TG0

7th December 2006, 06:47

Possible? I suppose.
Likely? No.

7th December 2006, 07:15

Are there just two possibilities? Either an all-knowing spiritual being exists or when we die we are dust, the lights go out.

Is it possible that when we die the lights don't go out but there is no God?

Of course it isn't possible. Let me rephrase the question that you just asked:

"After we die could we still be alive?"

The answer's obviously no.

jasmine

7th December 2006, 20:35

Of course it isn't possible. Let me rephrase the question that you just asked:

"After we die could we still be alive?"

The answer's obviously no.

Obviously. But that wasn't the question.

Jazzratt

7th December 2006, 20:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 08:35 pm

Of course it isn't possible. Let me rephrase the question that you just asked:

"After we die could we still be alive?"

The answer's obviously no.

Obviously. But that wasn't the question.
It's exactly what you asked.

It's impossible to have "lights on" without being alive. The brain activity of the dead is famously limited.

Xian

7th December 2006, 20:54

This is nothing new. I believe in God and as for all the Utopian arguments, we wouldn't want Utopia anyway because there is no good without bad, no happy without sad. And like someone said it is far beyond any comprehension we could come up with... Religion is an act of culture, of inner expression, just like art. Whether it's true or not isn't an issue until it becomes bigotry and affects those who do not want to be affected.

Even if there is no afterlife, no one will ever be able to know it. I have zero chance of experiencing disappointment.
~peace~

synthesis

7th December 2006, 22:50

For y'all information, the original idea that started this thread is as follows:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

It's by Epicurus.

Bright Banana Beard

8th December 2006, 20:16

can someone delete this? The Wisest man in the world, who is not endeared, will be listened to by none.

jasmine

9th December 2006, 18:21

The dichotomy:

We live in a material universe only. We are purely physical beings.

The universe was created by an all-knowing God. We are all God's children.

Are these the only two possibilities?

Zero

9th December 2006, 18:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:21 pm
The dichotomy:

We live in a material universe only. We are purely physical beings.

The universe was created by an all-knowing God. We are all God's children.

Are these the only two possibilities?
Of course not. There are also other possibilities; such as the Mayan Back-Of-A-Turtle-Shell theory. Or how about the Egyptian Chariot-Pulling-The-Sun theory. Each of these theories are supported by the same ammount of evidence that Creationism and Christianity have going for them. Therefore I DEMAND that each of these theories be taught as legitimate alternatives to Evolution! Fossil record and common sense be damned!

Even if you dress bullshit in a three piece suit; it's still bullshit.

jasmine

9th December 2006, 18:36

Even if you dress bullshit in a three piece suit; it's still bullshit.

Do you have a three piece suit?

Zero

9th December 2006, 18:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 06:36 pm

Even if you dress bullshit in a three piece suit; it's still bullshit.

Do you have a three piece suit?
Great comeback. Respond to my response.

Cryotank Screams

9th December 2006, 18:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 04:16 pm
can someone delete this?
Can I delete you?

We live in a material universe only. We are purely physical beings.

The only real answer.

The universe was created by an all-knowing God. We are all God's children.

Yes, I created the earth, I am god, now please quite talking about me, I hate you, and you annoy me.

:D

The whole concept of god really is quite idiotic and it shows that he can't possibly exist when you think about it; I mean essentially you are stating that some ghost, or goblin, sitting on some imaginary throne in some imaginary place in a useable realm, created everything by magic and hocus pocus, and that he knows and controls everything by being everywhere at every time, and made a human ant farm for the only purpose of having servants and devotees, and show love.

jasmine

9th December 2006, 19:12

Of course not. There are also other possibilities; such as the Mayan Back-Of-A-Turtle-Shell theory. Or how about the Egyptian Chariot-Pulling-The-Sun theory. Each of these theories are supported by the same ammount of evidence that Creationism and Christianity have going for them. Therefore I DEMAND that each of these theories be taught as legitimate alternatives to Evolution! Fossil record and common sense be damned!

It's difficult to respond to people who are programmed to disagree with whatever I say.

You demand that I provide proof but provide no proof for your own theories. Marxism has been discredited yet you still cling to it.

These theories that you quote are metaphors not literal belief. You don't understand the metaphors.

Disappointingly I do not have and all-encompassing theory (perhaps you should have lived in nineteenth century Germany, there were lots of complete solutions around).

In the end you die and in the end all that counts is how you face your death. This requires preparation and science cannot tell you how to do this.

Zero

9th December 2006, 20:14

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")You demand that I provide proof but provide no proof for your own theories.[/b]Excuse me? Last time I checked it is impossible to disprove a negative. You need to establish a reasonable foundation of belief with emperical evidence to support your hypothesis before any falsification can be done.

"Faith" doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")Marxism has been discredited yet you still cling to it.[/b]
Thank you for telling me what I believe.

I am a Libertarian Socialist Technocrat. I believe Marx had all the best intention, but revision and updating is needed. Marx lived in a period when the telephone was a radical invention. The concept of talking to another person halfway across the globe without even meeting them was almost a impossible idea. The notion that the 19th century technobrain was well enough informed to rework a 21st century society is asking too much. It is the people of the time who will decide what is to be done.

("jasmine")These theories that you quote are metaphors not literal belief.[/b][/quote]It was literal belief of the culture that we were riding on the back of a giant turtle. Just as it was literal belief that the world was flat. However, after Columbus sailed accross the ocean it prooved that Galileo was right.

The difference is, is that Scientific institutions of the time were forgiving enough to admit where they were wrong. Just as scientific thought of General Relativity today is giving way to Quantum Theory and the Laws of Chance, science is able to re-write itself with a continuous stream of information provided by emperical study.

We aren't always right, as fallible beings that is expected. However constructing a non-fallible being and attributing the order of the universe to it is just silly.

("jasmine")Disappointingly I do not have and all-encompassing theory[/b][/quote]Sounds like you fell asleep in your Biology and Astrophysics classes ;) .

"jasmine"@
In the end you die and in the end all that counts is how you face your death.I agree. After Neurons stop firing over your central cortex you cease to recall from memory, and you cease responding to your environment. Thus you can no longer directly influence the material reality. You loose your sense of self, as well as everyone around you starts to decay their sense of "you". Therefore, if you live your life to the fullest, and die with happyness, you waste little, and give everything you have.

"jasmine"
This requires preparation and science cannot tell you how to do this.I suppose this is outside the realms of scientific thought and into the philosophical. However what happens after I die means little to me. I'll find out when I'm there.

jasmine

9th December 2006, 20:36

Excuse me? Last time I checked it is impossible to disprove a negative. You need to establish a reasonable foundation of belief with emperical evidence to support your hypothesis before any falsification can be done.

"Faith" doesn't cut it.

It was literal belief of the culture that we were riding on the back of a giant turtle.

Which culture?

Where is the empirical evidence for Marxism? Or whatever it is you believe?

Empiricism is the God of science. Thank God for the washing machine. Is science really all we need? The problem is that science could be completely accurate in all its observations but be missing something.

How do you explain the durability of religion? People are stupid?

I suppose this is outside the realms of scientific thought and into the philosophical. However what happens after I die means little to me. I'll find out when I'm there.

Does it really mean so little to you?

Cryotank Screams

9th December 2006, 20:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:36 pm
How do you explain the durability of religion? People are stupid?

Memetic engineering.

Everyday Anarchy

9th December 2006, 20:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 02:36 pm
How do you explain the durability of religion? People are stupid?
That's actually a pretty stupid question seeing as there are many many many religions that disagree with each other on so many points. So even if one were to be "true" that would mean that hundreds of others were wrong. If it's possible for all but one religion to be wrong, why does it seem so incredible that all religions are wrong?

jasmine

9th December 2006, 20:54

Memetic engineering.

I never thought of that.

jasmine

9th December 2006, 20:58

That's actually a pretty stupid question seeing as there are many many many religions that disagree with each other on so many points. So even if one were to be "true" that would mean that hundreds of others were wrong. If it's possible for all but one religion to be wrong, why does it seem so incredible that all religions are wrong?

That's actually a pretty stupid response. I mean, really, what if all versions of marxism were wrong? I mean, there's only one scientific version of marxism isn't there? And of course it's true.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

9th December 2006, 21:30

If god knows everything that is going to happen what is the point in anything...

Zero

9th December 2006, 21:55

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")Which culture?[/b]Sorry about that, it was Iroquoi, not Mayan. I get my creation myths mixed up sometimes. Link (http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_12.html).

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")Where is the empirical evidence for Marxism? Or whatever it is you believe?[/b]I don't "believe" in Marxism, I apply a class-oriented analysis on the world, adjusted for each situation. But that sounds a bit too dry.

I follow my heart, and fight for the most potential for the greatest ammount of people. I believe that the regression of one, is the regression of all. That it should be of the utmost importance to every living being on the planet that a single living being is suffering. People over profits, and the process of creation matters just as much as the final product.

("jasmine")Empiricism is the God of science.[/b][/quote]Empirical evidence is testible, quantifiable, researchable meterial. Empiricism is as much the "God" of science as Imagination is the "God" of religion.

("jasmine")Is science really all we need?[/b][/quote]Depends on what you want. Communist thought is mostly based on the assumption that the level of technological advancement will determine the level of labor required for a society to function, any excess labor can be used at the will of the individual. Therefore the fine arts, literature, research... all would be given much more time as un wanted jobs were automated. In that respect science would provide us the tools of our own emancipation, and in turn provide us with everything science cannot; art, music, new technologies...

"jasmine"@
The problem is that science could be completely accurate in all its observations but be missing something.I agree. You can see it today as well. There are so many unexplained phenomena that occur, that we have emperical evidence for, that cannot be explained with common sense, or with scientific thought. This proves that we still have a path ahead.

There is more emperical evidence for ghosts, for apparitions, for the supernatural than there is against it. This makes me think that there is something else to the universe that we don't know about. Alternate demisions, planes of existence... It would be foolish to think that we can explain away everything, because we obviously cannot. However 200 years ago it would be laughable for a scientist to suggest how the flu was transfered from patient to patient. It was common knowlege that invisible deamons infected the souls of the living, and created the need for them to puke up their stomach. The deamons inside them also caused them to become hotter inside. To the 18th century technobrain this was a perfectly logical conclusion, not until the invention of the microscope were they actually able to see rational emperical evidence for the existance of microbes. Thus, they ammended their theories.

Therefore, to reject scientific anaylsis because it is "not complete" is just foolish. Of course it's not complete! Of course we can't explain everything! At this point all we know of the universe spirals down into a infinate regression (matter, forces, etc) and why wouldn't we? We are basing our conclusions on emperical evidence. If we don't have the tools to obtain all the emperical evidence, there is no way for us to construct a fully-working 'big picture' of the universe(s).

"jasmine"
Does it really mean so little to you?Well, I suppose sometimes more than others. When my grandmothers both passed away from Alzheimer's I thought about life after death, I thought about Heaven and Hell, I thought about dogma, and myths passed down through the centuries... but each time I arrived at the understanding that; even if I don't know whats happening to them, if anything is happening to them, if anything ever happened to them, there is nothing I can do, based on my understanding of the situation. Therefore it is prudent to remember them. To remember what they contributed to the world, and to remember their personalities.

I don't doubt there is something else to this world, to this existance. I have witnessed things I cannot explain firsthand. However just as the Iroqoi theorised about what was happening to them, I can theorise about what is happening to me. But unlike the Iroqoi, I have reason to believe that I will be disproven.

rouchambeau

9th December 2006, 22:08

You have only disproven one form of God. Good luck with the rest.

jasmine

10th December 2006, 12:35

Zero - thank you for your post. I appreciate very much the sincerity with which you have written. It's a long post and I will reply in the next couple of days.

jasmine

10th December 2006, 19:34

As a preface let me say (and this is not aimed at you, Zero) that on this board the stench of bullshit intellectual posturing is almost overpowering.

I have been told to “**** off,” have had death by horrible diseases wished on me, and been subjected to other forms of vile abuse all for the crime of not being a Marxist (or a physicist). This is debate, Marxist style. The old man must be revolving in his grave.

But eventually Zero, you published a post worth responding to, because it was a real, human, heartfelt piece or writing free of the egotistical crap that drives most posters here.

I don't "believe" in Marxism, I apply a class-oriented analysis on the world, adjusted for each situation. But that sounds a bit too dry.

I follow my heart, and fight for the most potential for the greatest amount of people. I believe that the regression of one, is the regression of all. That it should be of the utmost importance to every living being on the planet that a single living being is suffering. People over profits, and the process of creation matters just as much as the final product.

You don’t ‘believe’ in Marxism. But many here do. Or some variant of it. I have attempted to get somebody, anybody to defend Marxism empirically, that is using historical evidence, empirical evidence – supposedly their own coinage. But nobody has responded. They pile ridicule upon faith and belief but are too gutless to examine the evidence for their own misnamed science.

When you say ‘I follow my heart’ I believe that is the most any of us can do. These decisions, which side to take, which cause to fight for, are emotional, dare I say spiritual, and not logical or scientific. You don’t have to be a Marxist to admire Marx. Whether or not to fight on the side of the dispossessed is a decision that has nothing to do with science.

Empirical evidence is testable, quantifiable, researchable material. Empiricism is as much the "God" of science as Imagination is the "God" of religion.

To some extent. As far as social theories go (economics, history etc.) empirical evidence is the stuff of debate. There is never any final proof. Until of course the state withers away.

Depends on what you want. Communist thought is mostly based on the assumption that the level of technological advancement will determine the level of labor required for a society to function, any excess labor can be used at the will of the individual. Therefore the fine arts, literature, research... all would be given much more time as un wanted jobs were automated. In that respect science would provide us the tools of our own emancipation, and in turn provide us with everything science cannot; art, music, new technologies

Yes, it’s an assumption, that with more free time the arts etc. will flourish. One question is: what is it that the arts are providing that science cannot? It could be that under a communist society we will all accept that we have a limited life span and that beyond this life span we are dust and nothing more. It is a possibility. Is it likely?

Therefore, to reject scientific anaylsis because it is "not complete" is just foolish. Of course it's not complete! Of course we can't explain everything! At this point all we know of the universe spirals down into a infinate regression (matter, forces, etc) and why wouldn't we? We are basing our conclusions on emperical evidence. If we don't have the tools to obtain all the emperical evidence, there is no way for us to construct a fully-working 'big picture' of the universe(s).

I don’t reject scientific analysis. Interestingly, Deepak Chopra, who I regard as a new age, Hollywood fake, is of the opinion that science will ultimately provide proof for the existence of God. Apart from the fact that I believe Chopra to be a money-grubbing fake, I reject this possibility.

There are some paths that can only be taken alone. We die alone. Our understanding of what this may or may not mean is a purely personal matter and cannot be provided by society.

The church removes the individual from his or her own relationship with our common mortality. Death is our only certainty. How we deal with it is our single most important task.

Well, I suppose sometimes more than others. When my grandmothers both passed away from Alzheimer's I thought about life after death, I thought about Heaven and Hell, I thought about dogma, and myths passed down through the centuries... but each time I arrived at the understanding that; even if I don't know whats happening to them, if anything is happening to them, if anything ever happened to them, there is nothing I can do, based on my understanding of the situation. Therefore it is prudent to remember them. To remember what they contributed to the world, and to remember their personalities.

A wonderful sentiment.

I don't doubt there is something else to this world, to this existance. I have witnessed things I cannot explain firsthand. However just as the Iroqoi theorised about what was happening to them, I can theorise about what is happening to me. But unlike the Iroqoi, I have reason to believe that I will be disproven.

I too have witnessed much I cannot explain. I also expect my theories to be wrong. I believe one of the tasks of this life is to learn to live with uncertainty.

Dogma and certainty are the enemy of knowledge, spiritual or scientific. And believe me, both forms or knowledge do exist.

La ComÃ©die Noire

10th December 2006, 21:48

But eventually Zero, you published a post worth responding to, because it was a real, human, heartfelt piece or writing free of the egotistical crap that drives most posters here.

Yeah kind of like how you got so infuriated at some members you told them they could'nt get women. :P

We have given you links to essays & books on the matter. We're not ridculing you because you "aren't a Marxist" we are ridiculing you because you are trying to attack Marxism with no grounding and no basic concept of it. You demand information, we give it to you, you say it's not good enough, so we give you more, you still refute it. Have you even read any links we've supplied?

jasmine

10th December 2006, 22:03

Jazzratt

10th December 2006, 22:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 10:03 pm
I was infuriated because of the abuse, much of it very sexist abuse - that happens in the real world.
You replied to percieved sexist abuse with actual heteronormative abuse, yet somehow you're the victim.

Abusive idiots like Cryotank and Jazzrat present expositions of Marxist theory as proof of Marxist theory. I asked for facts in the same way as you ask for facts and was met only by abuse. I have retaliated. Too bad. Don't give me that shit, you asked for facts and once they were provided you crapped on about the source (despite of course your not bringing any counter sources to the table). You're an idiot.

La ComÃ©die Noire

10th December 2006, 22:19

I was infuriated because of the abuse, much of it very sexist abuse - that happens in the real world. Abusive idiots like Cryotank and Jazzrat present expositions of Marxist theory as proof of Marxist theory. I asked for facts in the same way as you ask for facts and was met only by abuse. I have retaliated. Too bad.

It wasn't sexist. if we brought a female marxist in here she'd probably call you a "****" too because frankly you are acting like a ****. Infact you are the one being sexist just assuming we like women because we are men, infact just assuming we are men at all is kind of sexist. The exposition of Marxist theory is proof of marxism we are asking you to analyze society with a marxist out look but you refuse to even read anything about it. You haven't even answered my question.

Did you read the links?

We gave you facts, you refused them, you acted stupid, we called you stupid. too bad.

Zero

10th December 2006, 23:35

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")You don’t ‘believe’ in Marxism. But many here do. Or some variant of it. I have attempted to get somebody, anybody to defend Marxism empirically, that is using historical evidence, empirical evidence – supposedly their own coinage. But nobody has responded. They pile ridicule upon faith and belief but are too gutless to examine the evidence for their own misnamed science.[/b]Well there are only a handful of people who actually come into the OI, if you log out and view the Philosophy, Theory, or History forum there are many Marxists who defend Dialectical Materialism, many Marxists who don't accept DM, many non-marxists who don't accept it... Marxism as a science applied to History wavers from person to person. However Marxism as a economic science (should be) pretty widely accepted.

For that I would direct you towards Das Kapital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm), or Wage-Labor And Capital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/index.htm). ComradeRed and bobkindles are both very well-versed in Marxist economics, much more so than I am.

By the way, I'd like to point out that no-where does it say that you must accept all of the theories of Karl Marx to be a Marxist, and not accepting any of Karl's theories does not mean you are not a Communist. Believing in Gravity doesn't make you a Newtonian.

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")When you say ‘I follow my heart’ I believe that is the most any of us can do. These decisions, which side to take, which cause to fight for, are emotional, dare I say spiritual, and not logical or scientific.[/b]I wholey dissagree. When cotton products first started coming down the line in the early 20th century and the Luddites revolted against loosing their jobs to machines, I am quite sure that the uninformed public did little to nothing to assist the Luddites. They saw the Spinning Jenny as a radical new improvement that made factory-spinning a path to the future. However, if they knew the struggle that was taking place between those who were being thrown into poverty by this radical new invention, and they didn't have constant Bourgeois propaganda telling them of a brand new world on the edge of invention... I believe they would have acted against the Bourgeois interest. Or at least came to a compromise to assist the newly dispossessed.

Therefore it is a bit silly to say that 'following your heart' can only come if logical analysis of a situation, and weighing the outcomes of each option doesn't. Short term gain, long term loss vs opposite. If you don't weigh the options with your brain, and use previous knowlege, and experiance to analyse a situation, you can't 'follow your heart' with any certainty.

("jasmine")Whether or not to fight on the side of the dispossessed is a decision that has nothing to do with science.[/b][/quote]If you are using a rational analysis of any given situation, and you choose the side that benifits you directly the most, then you are using the scientific method to determine your most benifitial outcome.

I, personally, would rather live in a free society rather than wage-slavery. Therefore I fight to liberate myself, my compatriats, and Humanity.

("jasmine")Until of course the state withers away.[/b][/quote]Which is the exact reason why I am not, and will never be a M-L. There is a sort of inate idea that a large state will wither away willingly as the people reach a truely civilized point. This is why the Petty-Bourgeoise need not have any control over industry. The Green method of consensus Democracy within Unions on the Local, State (or Regional), and National level promotes a horozontal power structure, and a bottom-heavy power structure. This is a form of Libertarian Socialism that I promote, or at least theorise about.

"jasmine"@
what is it that the arts are providing that science cannot? It could be that under a communist society we will all accept that we have a limited life span and that beyond this life span we are dust and nothing more. It is a possibility. Is it likely?It is a possibility, just as it is a posibility in any society. There will always be a motivation by the elders in society to develop a life-extending drug, or procedure. Though the last thing we need at this point is more people, or people who last longer. There is a certain comfort in knowing that people will eventually die.

All I know is that the last thing I want is to live forever. Unless I have a reason, I don't see me letting myself live beyond the age of 60. I couldn't bare to let myself deteriorate before my eyes.

"jasmine"
science will ultimately provide proof for the existence of God.She is assuming there is an end to science. I couldn't dissagree more.

11th December 2006, 13:11

Which is the exact reason why I am not, and will never be a M-L. There is a sort of inate idea that a large state will wither away willingly as the people reach a truely civilized point.

The withering of the state has nothing to do with what you call "M-L".

Zero

11th December 2006, 15:35

Originally posted by Zampanò@December 11, 2006 01:11 pm

Which is the exact reason why I am not, and will never be a M-L. There is a sort of inate idea that a large state will wither away willingly as the people reach a truely civilized point.

The withering of the state has nothing to do with what you call "M-L".
"M-L" Stands for Marxist-Leninist, and yes it does.

In every piece of literature talking about a post Marxist-Leninist world they discribe the "State withering away" into Communism.

Johnny Anarcho

11th December 2006, 16:00

I believe in God, so what. It may not make alot of sence to you guys just like it dont make sence to me why you dont believe, but hey, were all comrades. Let not the topic of religion divide us lest the Cappies should take advantage of it.

"THE PEOPLE, UNITED, CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED!"

MrDoom

11th December 2006, 16:03

science will ultimately provide proof for the existence of God.
That'll be the day that it is proven that all two-sided trianges internally contain 360°.

Johnny Anarcho

11th December 2006, 16:07

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 10, 2006 10:19 pm

I was infuriated because of the abuse, much of it very sexist abuse - that happens in the real world. Abusive idiots like Cryotank and Jazzrat present expositions of Marxist theory as proof of Marxist theory. I asked for facts in the same way as you ask for facts and was met only by abuse. I have retaliated. Too bad.

It wasn't sexist. if we brought a female marxist in here she'd probably call you a "****" too because frankly you are acting like a ****. Infact you are the one being sexist just assuming we like women because we are men, infact just assuming we are men at all is kind of sexist. The exposition of Marxist theory is proof of marxism we are asking you to analyze society with a marxist out look but you refuse to even read anything about it. You haven't even answered my question.

Did you read the links?

We gave you facts, you refused them, you acted stupid, we called you stupid. too bad.
Chill out Comrade Sensitive =D. Is it not a general assumption that most men like women (not counting gay guys). Also your name is Floyd so that pretty much gives your gender away.

Zero

11th December 2006, 16:41

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 11, 2006 04:00 pm
I believe in God, so what. It may not make alot of sence to you guys just like it dont make sence to me why you dont believe, but hey, were all comrades. Let not the topic of religion divide us lest the Cappies should take advantage of it.

"THE PEOPLE, UNITED, CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED!"
Well, that depends. If you attend mega-churches, or have ever seen Richard Dawkins' 'The Root of All Evil' you can plainly see the reactionary elements of beleif exercised constantly.

I suppose it is lucky (for me) that I live in a rural part of Oregon, where everyone is either an activist, or a farmer. Farmers couldn't care less wether or not there is a god (for the most part), as they get crops either way. Activists don't care, for the most part because we only see reactionary elements being eminated from the Church.

Jazzratt

11th December 2006, 20:17

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+December 11, 2006 04:07 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ December 11, 2006 04:07 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 10, 2006 10:19 pm

I was infuriated because of the abuse, much of it very sexist abuse - that happens in the real world. Abusive idiots like Cryotank and Jazzrat present expositions of Marxist theory as proof of Marxist theory. I asked for facts in the same way as you ask for facts and was met only by abuse. I have retaliated. Too bad.

It wasn't sexist. if we brought a female marxist in here she'd probably call you a "****" too because frankly you are acting like a ****. Infact you are the one being sexist just assuming we like women because we are men, infact just assuming we are men at all is kind of sexist. The exposition of Marxist theory is proof of marxism we are asking you to analyze society with a marxist out look but you refuse to even read anything about it. You haven't even answered my question.

Did you read the links?

We gave you facts, you refused them, you acted stupid, we called you stupid. too bad.
Is it not a general assumption that most men like women (not counting gay guys). [/b]
It's also a disgustingly heteronormative assumption that should be called out wherever it is found.

t_wolves_fan

11th December 2006, 20:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 08:17 pm
It's also a disgustingly heteronormative assumption that should be called out wherever it is found.
Pointing out the obvious is bad?

:huh:

jasmine

11th December 2006, 21:49

Zero - you really need to find the courage to act on your convictions.

Cryotank Spleens and Jazzrat and the rest are just disgusting and ignorant. Don't you see that?

Jazzratt

11th December 2006, 21:53

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 11, 2006 08:29 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 11, 2006 08:29 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2006 08:17 pm
It's also a disgustingly heteronormative assumption that should be called out wherever it is found.
Pointing out the obvious is bad?

:huh: [/b]
Hetronomativity is one of the aspects of society that allows homohpobia to breed.

t_wolves_fan

11th December 2006, 21:59

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 11, 2006 09:53 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 11, 2006 09:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 08:29 pm

[email protected] 11, 2006 08:17 pm
It's also a disgustingly heteronormative assumption that should be called out wherever it is found.
Pointing out the obvious is bad?

:huh:
Hetronomativity is one of the aspects of society that allows homohpobia to breed. [/b]
So, because some morons are against homosexuals, it's wrong to point out that most guys like women?

Seriously, how does stuff like that even remotely begin to make any sense at all? How do you hear or read someone say, "well, we don't want people to feel bad, so until nobody thinks in a way we don't approve of, you can't state that particular fact" and not ask, "What, are you fucking nuts?"

jasmine

11th December 2006, 22:23

Okay, let's take a step back here. If you think you are going to drive me away with abuse you can forget it. You can ban me because I'm not saying what you want to hear but that's as good as it gets.

Cyryontak Spleens has not answered my questions because he cannot answer the questions. His intellect is simply too timid.

Give me the factual, historical proof for Marxism in the twentieth century. Can you just do this? Without links to Wikipedia articles. I suspect the reluctance to do so reflects the lack of evidence.

Also t_wolves_fan, thanks for the support and watch this space.

t_wolves_fan

11th December 2006, 22:31

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 10, 2006 10:14 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 10, 2006 10:14 pm)
[email protected] 10, 2006 10:03 pm
I was infuriated because of the abuse, much of it very sexist abuse - that happens in the real world.
You replied to percieved sexist abuse with actual heteronormative abuse, yet somehow you're the victim.

[/b]
Wait wait wait.

If Jazzrat is a guy (and I cannot imagine that), then guy is calling a woman sexist because she got upset at being called a ****?

This has to violate the Leftist rules of offending people somehow. If I remember my radical feminism very well, and I think I do, then the guy is always wrong because of the Patriarchy, and the woman at all times has the right to cry foul.

Now, if Jazzrat is a woman, then I guess we have to go deep into the rulebook of which offense is greater. Jazzrat and Jasmine as sisters should be equal, I assume, so no offense can be given due to their equal status as victims of the Patriarchy.

Jasmine however seems to be slightly supportive of religion, which as we all know is a tool of the Patriarchy, so I guess she loses credibility when it comes to who is more offended; so I guess Jazzrat as the non-supporter of the Patriarchy is the only who is allowed to be offended. It seems that Jasmine also gave greater offense by using "hetero-normative" speak, which is doubly offensive so long as the homosexuals in question are female (male homosexuals required to be less offended due to their privileged status in the Patriarchy).

So basically, offending a heterosexual woman is a 5-yard facemask penalty, while offending a homosexual woman is a 15-yard facemask penalty.

Or something.

See this is why bizzaro leftist victimology never appealed to me much.

:lol:

Jazzratt

11th December 2006, 23:00

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 11, 2006 09:59 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 11, 2006 09:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:53 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 08:29 pm

[email protected] 11, 2006 08:17 pm
It's also a disgustingly heteronormative assumption that should be called out wherever it is found.
Pointing out the obvious is bad?

:huh:
Hetronomativity is one of the aspects of society that allows homohpobia to breed.
So, because some morons are against homosexuals, it's wrong to point out that most guys like women?

Seriously, how does stuff like that even remotely begin to make any sense at all? How do you hear or read someone say, "well, we don't want people to feel bad, so until nobody thinks in a way we don't approve of, you can't state that particular fact" and not ask, "What, are you fucking nuts?" [/b]
Stating that the majority of people are heterosexual is different from assuming a person you speak to will automatically be hetorsexual are two completely different ideas. As soon as you start making that kind of assumption you sson believe homosexuality is an 'abnormality' which is what homophobia is you stupid, stupid little shit.

And onto your other pointless rant.

Wait wait wait.

If Jazzrat is a guy (and I cannot imagine that), then guy is calling a woman sexist because she got upset at being called a ****?

This has to violate the Leftist rules of offending people somehow. If I remember my radical feminism very well, and I think I do, then the guy is always wrong because of the Patriarchy, and the woman at all times has the right to cry foul. That's a stupid and trollish statement. Jasemine is clearly a ****ish troglodyte and if you really want to play some fucking stupid game in which it is only possible for women to use words without being sexist (which is as ridiculous as it is paradoxical). YOu clearly know shit all about radical feminism, aside from this mangled strawman you've pulled from your arse.

Now, if Jazzrat is a woman, then I guess we have to go deep into the rulebook of which offense is greater. Jazzrat and Jasmine as sisters should be equal, I assume, so no offense can be given due to their equal status as victims of the Patriarchy. This isn't about 'patriarchy' or who is more of a victim. It's simply the fact that jasemine has percieved a dimension to my abuse which is simply nonexistant (the ludicrous 'sexism' claim) and replied to this percieved slight with actual hetronormative abuse. So who's the twat?

Jasmine however seems to be slightly supportive of religion, which as we all know is a tool of the Patriarchy, so I guess she loses credibility when it comes to who is more offended; so I guess Jazzrat as the non-supporter of the Patriarchy is the only who is allowed to be offended. It seems that Jasmine also gave greater offense by using "hetero-normative" speak, which is doubly offensive so long as the homosexuals in question are female (male homosexuals required to be less offended due to their privileged status in the Patriarchy).

So basically, offending a heterosexual woman is a 5-yard facemask penalty, while offending a homosexual woman is a 15-yard facemask penalty.

Or something.

See this is why bizzaro leftist victimology never appealed to me much. This is nothing to do with who is more offended, it is to do with jasemine using her status as a woman to lend creedance to the ridiculous claims of my being sexist, whilst simulteanously taking a hetronomative attitude.

Why do you insist on breathing?

12th December 2006, 04:53

"M-L" Stands for Marxist-Leninist, and yes it does.

I know what it stands for.

In every piece of literature talking about a post Marxist-Leninist world they discribe the "State withering away" into Communism.

It's not Lenin's theory; it's Marx's. It's a Marxist theory, not a "Marxist-Leninist" one. There's no such thing as Marxist-Leninist theories, since Lenin didn't contribute theoretically enough to have an entire ideology created from his theories. Marxism-Leninism nowadays doesn't even have that much to do with Lenin.

La ComÃ©die Noire

12th December 2006, 05:48

Chill out Comrade Sensitive chacha.gif. Is it not a general assumption that most men like women (not counting gay guys). Also your name is Floyd so that pretty much gives your gender away.

Okay I've had my fun. I'm chill as an ice cube in alaska :D

t_wolves_fan

12th December 2006, 15:06

Stating that the majority of people are heterosexual is different from assuming a person you speak to will automatically be hetorsexual are two completely different ideas. As soon as you start making that kind of assumption you sson believe homosexuality is an 'abnormality' which is what homophobia is you stupid, stupid little shit.

Wow. I mean really, wow. I know people like you exist, and I've seen a few at college protests and stuff, but I always wondered if people really thought like that.

You have to be one hell of a thin-skinned crybaby to be offended if someone assumes you're heterosexual. It's not like that's the only assumption people make upon learning something superficial about someone. I mean, I'm a Vikings' fan and when I would tell people I was from Wisconsin, they'd ask if I was a Packers' fan. According to you, I should have been deeply offended.

Fortunately, I'm not as weak as you are. I understand that it's not the assumption of what I am that's the problem (unless of course the assumption is that I'm something bad, like a criminal); it's the attitude the other person has upon learning that I'm not actually like what they thought I was like. So, if I were gay, and someone asked where my wife was, I'd find it pretty difficult to get offended because I understand that about 90% or so of men are hetero. I guess I don't have the sense of entitlement that you have that people must never make any mistake about what I am otherwise my precious, fragile self esteem will be crushed. No, I'd only be offended if after telling them I was gay they went off on a rant about how evil or sick I am.

No wonder you're so angry all the time. Did it ever occur to you that if you actively seek to be offended, then you'll probably be offended a lot?

This isn't about 'patriarchy' or who is more of a victim. It's simply the fact that jasemine has percieved a dimension to my abuse which is simply nonexistant (the ludicrous 'sexism' claim) and replied to this percieved slight with actual hetronormative abuse. So who's the twat?

Ah yes, I had forgotten the radical feminist trait of using long, complex sentences and words to sound as if one is making any sense at all. We must certainly thoroughly analyze the patriarchal dimensions of the heteronormative traits against the dominant paradigm in a radical feminist context so as to achieve the existential meaning of the paradoxical understanding.

Uh....yeah.

:wacko:

In other words, we have to come up with a reason why what she or he did or said is offensive so we can get pissy and demand "action" of some kind, which of course will never be enough. That's all it ever means. Seek offense, get offended, complain, complain about lack of people caring about our complaint. Play bongos at protest. Rinse, repeat.

This is nothing to do with who is more offended, it is to do with jasemine using her status as a woman to lend creedance to the ridiculous claims of my being sexist, whilst simulteanously taking a hetronomative attitude.

There's no doubt in my mind you're sexist, because you come up with these ridiculous theories to explain why you're really not. Whether you don't like women, men, transgenders, or whatever else is all that isn't clear.

Why do you insist on breathing?

Reason #5 is to piss people like you off. Thanks to you, it's actually moved up from #7 this week.

:lol:

Johnny Anarcho

12th December 2006, 17:07

Originally posted by Zero+December 11, 2006 04:41 pm--> (Zero @ December 11, 2006 04:41 pm)
Johnny [email protected] 11, 2006 04:00 pm
I believe in God, so what. It may not make alot of sence to you guys just like it dont make sence to me why you dont believe, but hey, were all comrades. Let not the topic of religion divide us lest the Cappies should take advantage of it.

"THE PEOPLE, UNITED, CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED!"
Well, that depends. If you attend mega-churches, or have ever seen Richard Dawkins' 'The Root of All Evil' you can plainly see the reactionary elements of beleif exercised constantly.

[/b]
Thats what Marx was against, religion being used to gain profit at the expense of the poor. I'm not a Chrisitian but I have read the Bible and these mega-churches have distorted and perverted what Jesus was saying and the message he was putting out.

Zero

12th December 2006, 19:29

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+December 12, 2006 05:07 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ December 12, 2006 05:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:41 pm

Johnny [email protected] 11, 2006 04:00 pm
I believe in God, so what. It may not make alot of sence to you guys just like it dont make sence to me why you dont believe, but hey, were all comrades. Let not the topic of religion divide us lest the Cappies should take advantage of it.

"THE PEOPLE, UNITED, CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED!"
Well, that depends. If you attend mega-churches, or have ever seen Richard Dawkins' 'The Root of All Evil' you can plainly see the reactionary elements of beleif exercised constantly.

Thats what Marx was against, religion being used to gain profit at the expense of the poor. I'm not a Chrisitian but I have read the Bible and these mega-churches have distorted and perverted what Jesus was saying and the message he was putting out. [/b]
Does it matter what "Marx was against"? Make decisions for yourself.

When I was refering to the "reactionary elements clearly being shown" I was talking about when reactionary measures, laws, or policy is being enforced, or recomended by religious institutions. Though this isn't always followed (ie supporting Israel.)

Believe if you wish, and I agree with "his message being twisted", but read up on your belief. Look at the history behind Christian thought. The Council of Pytheas (or whatever it was called), the doc 'Who Wrote The Bible'... the more you examine it, the more the bible falls apart.

It's much more practical to have faith in Humanity rather than faith in a aged text.

t_wolves_fan

12th December 2006, 20:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 07:29 pm
It's much more practical to have faith in Humanity rather than faith in a aged text.
I'd say faith in either is irrational.

Zero

12th December 2006, 20:33

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 12, 2006 08:19 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 12, 2006 08:19 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2006 07:29 pm
It's much more practical to have faith in Humanity rather than faith in a aged text.
I'd say faith in either is irrational. [/b]
And why is that?

jasmine

12th December 2006, 22:28

I've taken the night off - but don't worry Cryostank Steams ( oh dear have I misspelt that) and the strange, little, venomous rat person - I will be back. Of course you can ban me. But of course, also, I only exist in cyberspace.

chimx

12th December 2006, 22:41

in response to this original post, this has been a counter argument against judaism since before the time of christianity. it is hardly new. the old testament of the bible covers the argument in the Book of Job, in which god basically answers you question by saying, "who are you to know or understand my ways?" kind of a cop out, but whatever.

Cryotank Screams

12th December 2006, 23:00

Cyryontak Spleens has not answered my questions because he cannot answer the questions. His intellect is simply too timid.

I nor my intellect are by no means timid, no you are simply bitter, that I made you look like a fool and a quivering puppy in a debate; I provided example after example, answer after answer, and what did you offer? Absolutely nothing, but immature insults, followed by repetitive questions, and coattail arguments, you didn’t even really debate me, wow, aren’t you something.

I've taken the night off - but don't worry Cryostank Steams ( oh dear have I misspelt that)

Insulting me, in a thread I haven't really been apart of, or followed, I guess I really got to you, hmm? Also you purposely misspelled words are by no means funny, nor witty, I corrected you on my username because bad grammar, and spelling annoy me, but hey, if you want to continue to look like a bitter dumbass, with no spelling skills along with no debating skills, go ahead.

Want to debate me, then debate me, don’t sit here and insult me, essentially behind my back, because I beat you in a debate; how cowardly.

t_wolves_fan

13th December 2006, 15:26

Originally posted by Zero+December 12, 2006 08:33 pm--> (Zero @ December 12, 2006 08:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 08:19 pm

[email protected] 12, 2006 07:29 pm
It's much more practical to have faith in Humanity rather than faith in a aged text.
I'd say faith in either is irrational.
And why is that? [/b]
Because people are irrational and easily manipulated.

Putting faith in them is on par with religion.

Jazzratt

13th December 2006, 15:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 03:06 pm

Stating that the majority of people are heterosexual is different from assuming a person you speak to will automatically be hetorsexual are two completely different ideas. As soon as you start making that kind of assumption you sson believe homosexuality is an 'abnormality' which is what homophobia is you stupid, stupid little shit.

Wow. I mean really, wow. I know people like you exist, and I've seen a few at college protests and stuff, but I always wondered if people really thought like that.

You have to be one hell of a thin-skinned crybaby to be offended if someone assumes you're heterosexual. It's not like that's the only assumption people make upon learning something superficial about someone. I mean, I'm a Vikings' fan and when I would tell people I was from Wisconsin, they'd ask if I was a Packers' fan. According to you, I should have been deeply offended.

Fortunately, I'm not as weak as you are. I understand that it's not the assumption of what I am that's the problem (unless of course the assumption is that I'm something bad, like a criminal); it's the attitude the other person has upon learning that I'm not actually like what they thought I was like. So, if I were gay, and someone asked where my wife was, I'd find it pretty difficult to get offended because I understand that about 90% or so of men are hetero. I guess I don't have the sense of entitlement that you have that people must never make any mistake about what I am otherwise my precious, fragile self esteem will be crushed. No, I'd only be offended if after telling them I was gay they went off on a rant about how evil or sick I am.

No wonder you're so angry all the time. Did it ever occur to you that if you actively seek to be offended, then you'll probably be offended a lot?
:lol: So you think this about being offended? What the fuck is wrong with you? You don't have to be offended by something to recognise it's wrong, As I mentioned before heteronormativity extends beyond simply assuming somone is straight (which is stil a bloody silly thing to do.) and more into how society percieves people. If you live in a world where everything is geared towards straight people, where you are automatically assumed straight it can lead to feelings of being, well, strange - odd and unwanted. Offense at that point doesn't enter into it. I don't personally care about whether or not I offend somone, I'll leave that up to the politcally correct.

This isn't about 'patriarchy' or who is more of a victim. It's simply the fact that jasemine has percieved a dimension to my abuse which is simply nonexistant (the ludicrous 'sexism' claim) and replied to this percieved slight with actual hetronormative abuse. So who's the twat?

Ah yes, I had forgotten the radical feminist trait of using long, complex sentences and words to sound as if one is making any sense at all. I'm sorry if my deviating from the usual my usual four letters confused you.
We must certainly thoroughly analyze the patriarchal dimensions of the heteronormative traits against the dominant paradigm in a radical feminist context so as to achieve the existential meaning of the paradoxical understanding.

Uh....yeah.

:wacko:

In other words, we have to come up with a reason why what she or he did or said is offensive so we can get pissy and demand "action" of some kind, which of course will never be enough. That's all it ever means. Seek offense, get offended, complain, complain about lack of people caring about our complaint. Play bongos at protest. Rinse, repeat. You're talking shite again, what's more it's about something of which you have fuck all knowledge. Most of what you "know" about radical feminism seems to be a bourgeoise patriachal steryotype so arguing with you is near enough poinless.

This is nothing to do with who is more offended, it is to do with jasemine using her status as a woman to lend creedance to the ridiculous claims of my being sexist, whilst simulteanously taking a hetronomative attitude.

There's no doubt in my mind you're sexist, because you come up with these ridiculous theories to explain why you're really not. What the fuck are you talking about>? Where have I constructed any theories as to why I'm not sexist. If I absolutley must justify myself to you I would say I am not sexist because I do not hold one gender in higher esteem than another. THat isn't a ridiculous theory that is a statement of fact.
Whether you don't like women, men, transgenders, or whatever else is all that isn't clear. I love men & women (transgender is simply a man or woman who was born in the wrong body, and thus should be counted as whatever gender they are.), that's why I'm a leftist I want humanity to advance, to leave behind all the greed and corruption. You on the other hand are a twisted little shit that hates everyone. Also your response had nothing to do with what I was saying: Essentially that jasmine was using the idea that I am sympathetic to women's liberation as a way of attacking me, i.e to discredit me with ridiculous claims to sexism. She also managed to cap this all by illustrating perfectly her hetronormative outlook.

Why do you insist on breathing?

Reason #5 is to piss people like you off. Thanks to you, it's actually moved up from #7 this week.

:lol: What a fascinating life you must lead. :lol:

t_wolves_fan

13th December 2006, 16:00

:lol: So you think this about being offended? What the fuck is wrong with you? You don't have to be offended by something to recognise it's wrong, As I mentioned before heteronormativity extends beyond simply assuming somone is straight (which is stil a bloody silly thing to do.) and more into how society percieves people. If you live in a world where everything is geared towards straight people, where you are automatically assumed straight it can lead to feelings of being, well, strange - odd and unwanted. Offense at that point doesn't enter into it. I don't personally care about whether or not I offend somone, I'll leave that up to the politcally correct.

You speak in circles, as you usually do, until you arrive at a point that exists only in your head.

Yes, it's obviously about offense. You admit to at the end: feeling, well, strange - odd and unwanted. That's being offended.

In your endless crusade to seek offense and fix an ill that probably does not exist (some Spanish dude wrote a book about this topic a few hundred years ago. It's quite good, you should read it because you are the main character.), you make a connection that is absurd: assuming one is hetero means you think not being hetero is bad. That's iditiotic. Assuming one is hetero is often just playing the odds and has nothing to do with making a value judgement about sexuality. I've made the mistake plenty of times, and upon being informed that the person was gay I didn't care. It was no different than if I assumed they like the Eagles because they're from Philadelphia.

I'm left-handed, I live in a world that's geared towards right-handed people. Stores sell products and schools have desks that assume everyone is right-handed. I'm fairly certain that they don't do it because they hate left-handers, so I deal with it. If I do come across someone who hates left-handers, well I generally laugh at them. If they hate me for what I am, that's their problem, not mine.

You're talking shite again, what's more it's about something of which you have fuck all knowledge. Most of what you "know" about radical feminism seems to be a bourgeoise patriachal steryotype so arguing with you is near enough poinless.

No, I've analyzed the dominant paradigm of the patriarchal stereotype for existential meaning in a radical feminist context.

And I discovered it doesn't make any sense.

What the fuck are you talking about>? Where have I constructed any theories as to why I'm not sexist. If I absolutley must justify myself to you I would say I am not sexist because I do not hold one gender in higher esteem than another. THat isn't a ridiculous theory that is a statement of fact.

If that's the criteria then I'm not sexist nor, I imagine, is Jasmine.

I bet however if I dare to assume something about one sex or another because 95% of them behave a certain way, you'll condemn me as a sexist because you've analyzed the dominant linquistic patriarchal paradigm of the heteronormative existential process in a feminist context supercomputer, which means you'll decide that because I'm male and because I said something that you disagree with, I'm sexist.

And you'd do it because it's easier to label someone than it is to argue the matter at hand, a tactic all political hacks utilize.

I love men & women (transgender is simply a man or woman who was born in the wrong body, and thus should be counted as whatever gender they are.), that's why I'm a leftist I want humanity to advance, to leave behind all the greed and corruption. You on the other hand are a twisted little shit that hates everyone.

:lol:

And there it is: I dare disagree with you, an enlightened leftist who knows what's good for everyone, so I hate everyone.

That has to be it, doesn't it. No reasonable person could ever disagree with someone of your intellect, could they.

:lol:

Also your response had nothing to do with what I was saying: Essentially that jasmine was using the idea that I am sympathetic to women's liberation as a way of attacking me, i.e to discredit me with ridiculous claims to sexism. She also managed to cap this all by illustrating perfectly her hetronormative outlook.

You weren't saying anything, you were using the above tactic: disagreement with you = hate, because it's easier that way.

Johnny Anarcho

13th December 2006, 16:10

Originally posted by Zero+December 12, 2006 07:29 pm--> (Zero @ December 12, 2006 07:29 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12, 2006 05:07 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 04:41 pm

Johnny [email protected] 11, 2006 04:00 pm
I believe in God, so what. It may not make alot of sence to you guys just like it dont make sence to me why you dont believe, but hey, were all comrades. Let not the topic of religion divide us lest the Cappies should take advantage of it.

"THE PEOPLE, UNITED, CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED!"
Well, that depends. If you attend mega-churches, or have ever seen Richard Dawkins' 'The Root of All Evil' you can plainly see the reactionary elements of beleif exercised constantly.

Thats what Marx was against, religion being used to gain profit at the expense of the poor. I'm not a Chrisitian but I have read the Bible and these mega-churches have distorted and perverted what Jesus was saying and the message he was putting out.
When I was refering to the "reactionary elements clearly being shown" I was talking about when reactionary measures, laws, or policy is being enforced, or recomended by religious institutions. Though this isn't always followed (ie supporting Israel.)

Believe if you wish, and I agree with "his message being twisted", but read up on your belief. Look at the history behind Christian thought. The Council of Pytheas (or whatever it was called), the doc 'Who Wrote The Bible'... the more you examine it, the more the bible falls apart.

It's much more practical to have faith in Humanity rather than faith in a aged text. [/b]
Whats reactionary is all relative; to some people it might seem reactionary that Islam forbids alcohol while to others it may seem perfectly revolutionary.

I watched "Who Wrote the Bible" and I know about the Nicene Council but it doesnt change anything. Not a force on Earth can destroy the ideas of pascifism, selflesness, empowerment for the powerless, and equality of all, that Jesus imbodied and preached.

Maybe religion isnt practical but practicality never stopped Che Guevara and it wont stop me.

Jazzratt

13th December 2006, 16:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:00 pm

:lol: So you think this about being offended? What the fuck is wrong with you? You don't have to be offended by something to recognise it's wrong, As I mentioned before heteronormativity extends beyond simply assuming somone is straight (which is stil a bloody silly thing to do.) and more into how society percieves people. If you live in a world where everything is geared towards straight people, where you are automatically assumed straight it can lead to feelings of being, well, strange - odd and unwanted. Offense at that point doesn't enter into it. I don't personally care about whether or not I offend somone, I'll leave that up to the politcally correct.

You speak in circles, as you usually do, until you arrive at a point that exists only in your head.

Yes, it's obviously about offense. You admit to at the end: feeling, well, strange - odd and unwanted. That's being offended.
No it isn't, it's alienation. Alienation differs from offense in that it causes actual despair and depression rather than makes somone a little bit angry.

In your endless crusade to seek offense and fix an ill that probably does not exist (some Spanish dude wrote a book about this topic a few hundred years ago. It's quite good, you should read it because you are the main character.) Ah yes, opposing homophobia is a quioxtic quest - because everyone knows that because the most salient and blatent examples of homophobia are in a relative minority no one has reactionary sentiments about homosexuals.
, you make a connection that is absurd: assuming one is hetero means you think not being hetero is bad. That's iditiotic. Assuming one is hetero is often just playing the odds and has nothing to do with making a value judgement about sexuality. I've made the mistake plenty of times, and upon being informed that the person was gay I didn't care. It was no different than if I assumed they like the Eagles because they're from Philadelphia. Great so now sexuality, a source of much politcal violence and opression is the same as what sports team you support. It amazes me that you have no idea what effect an entire society of people who assume hetrosexuality is the norm (despite of course as many as 1 in 12 people having had a homosexual experience (of the people who were brave enough to admit this on a recent survey.)) has on homosexuals in terms of alienation and on hetrosexuals in terms of intolerance.

I'm left-handed, I live in a world that's geared towards right-handed people. Stores sell products and schools have desks that assume everyone is right-handed. I'm fairly certain that they don't do it because they hate left-handers, so I deal with it. If I do come across someone who hates left-handers, well I generally laugh at them. If they hate me for what I am, that's their problem, not mine. Ah yeah of course you totally know what it's like being gay because you're left handed. I remember now, people can lose their jobs just for being left handed, can't they? People are beaten to death for being left handed, aren't they? Aren't they ostracised from society, lose their friends - don't thhey get disowned by their parents - just for being left handed. All those ministers preaching hell fire for the left handed. Laws slanted against left handed couples. Don't be a fucking cretin.

You're talking shite again, what's more it's about something of which you have fuck all knowledge. Most of what you "know" about radical feminism seems to be a bourgeoise patriachal steryotype so arguing with you is near enough poinless.

No, I've analyzed the dominant paradigm of the patriarchal stereotype for existential meaning in a radical feminist context. Ah, so you don't know anything about feminism, why didn't you say so earlier?

And I discovered it doesn't make any sense.[/quote[ Of course it doesn't, you've taken a selection of terms that have specific meanings (existential for example) and then made a sentence that is grammatically, and logically correct but makes no real sense in terms of the argument at hand, or indeed common sense.

[QUOTE]What the fuck are you talking about>? Where have I constructed any theories as to why I'm not sexist. If I absolutley must justify myself to you I would say I am not sexist because I do not hold one gender in higher esteem than another. THat isn't a ridiculous theory that is a statement of fact.

If that's the criteria then I'm not sexist nor, I imagine, is Jasmine. I didn't argue either of you were sexist. I understand however that you implicitly support patriarchy.

I bet however if I dare to assume something about one sex or another because 95% of them behave a certain way, you'll condemn me as a sexist because you've analyzed the dominant linquistic patriarchal paradigm of the heteronormative existential process in a feminist context supercomputer, which means you'll decide that because I'm male and because I said something that you disagree with, I'm sexist. No I'll condemn you as sexist because you've created a steryotype of a certian sex. You don't make assumptions about race (at least I hope you don't, but anything is possible with you), so why do it with sex, gender or sexuality?

And you'd do it because it's easier to label someone than it is to argue the matter at hand, a tactic all political hacks utilize. Brilliant slight of hand there, decide to launch into a blatant and false ad hominiem to illicit a self-condemning response. The fact is that I was labelled 'sexist' by jasmine, I pointed out that I never said anything to indicate that, and indeed that I am not sexist. I simply pointed out the hetronormativity because it pisses me off how people are so cool with that kind of assumption about people. If I assumed you were white, would you be offended or think me a racist?

I love men & women (transgender is simply a man or woman who was born in the wrong body, and thus should be counted as whatever gender they are.), that's why I'm a leftist I want humanity to advance, to leave behind all the greed and corruption. You on the other hand are a twisted little shit that hates everyone.

:lol:

And there it is: I dare disagree with you, an enlightened leftist who knows what's good for everyone, so I hate everyone.

That has to be it, doesn't it. No reasonable person could ever disagree with someone of your intellect, could they.

:lol: Disagreement doesn't enter into it, your support of the patriarchy, plutocracy and exploitation of capitlaism indicates your utter hate filled contempt for humanity.

Also your response had nothing to do with what I was saying: Essentially that jasmine was using the idea that I am sympathetic to women's liberation as a way of attacking me, i.e to discredit me with ridiculous claims to sexism. She also managed to cap this all by illustrating perfectly her hetronormative outlook.

You weren't saying anything, you were using the above tactic: disagreement with you = hate, because it's easier that way. No I wasn't and you know it.

I seriously doubt wether I'll bother with your next ill informed rant, save maybe scan it in case you miracuolsly decide to concede like an honest person.

t_wolves_fan

13th December 2006, 17:48

No it isn't, it's alienation. Alienation differs from offense in that it causes actual despair and depression rather than makes somone a little bit angry.

Right, and making a quick assumption that one is heterosexual really leads to that.

Again, give me a break. If your skin is thin enough that you're upset by someone assuming you're straight, or white, or black, or gay then you may as well never leave the house because you're so damn pathetic.

Whining and *****ing about these non-issues takes away from real issues of discrimination, like denying marriage protections or people being beaten for who they are. It's like you're a fireman who showed up at a housefire and worried about the lawn needing to be cut.

Good grief.

I didn't argue either of you were sexist. I understand however that you implicitly support patriarchy.

:lol:

The "patriarchy" is a pre-packaged product invented to rally people like you to a cause. It's no different than "activist judges" for the right. It does not really exist, rather it's a collection of anecdotal events wrapped together into a slanted view of reality that represents a windmill for you to attack.

The patriarchy does not exist. If you'd label current reality as "the patriarchy" then I "support" the partiarchy about as much as I do the sun rising in the east.

No I'll condemn you as sexist because you've created a steryotype of a certian sex.

If 95% of women exhibit a certain trait and I assume a woman has that trait, how is that wrong? It isn't. It's no different than playing any other percentages.

Playing percentages in and of itself is not bad, it's rational. It's value free. You think something is likely to happen so you assume it will.

What is "bad" is using those percentages to bring real harm - not the kind felt only by thin-skinned oppression-seekers like yourself - to people simply because of those traits.

Trying to ban playing the percentages merely because of what it can lead to is not only absurdly impractical, it's dangerous. It's like banning speech on a broad scale because of what it can lead to.

Which, given the previous wars over practicing religion in public, you'd probably support anyway, you big freedom lover you.

I seriously doubt wether I'll bother with your next ill informed rant, save maybe scan it in case you miracuolsly decide to concede like an honest person.

You don't have the willpower to resist.

Zero

13th December 2006, 18:35

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 13, 2006 03:26 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 13, 2006 03:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 08:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 08:19 pm

[email protected] 12, 2006 07:29 pm
It's much more practical to have faith in Humanity rather than faith in a aged text.
I'd say faith in either is irrational.
And why is that?
Because people are irrational and easily manipulated.

Putting faith in them is on par with religion. [/b]
You put your faith in people every day. When you drive on the road you put faith in other drivers not to stop suddenly, or cause an accedent. You put faith in your co-workers to support you, or help you (for whatever job you have.) You put faith in the farmers who grow your food, or the slaughterers who kill your food. You put faith in the food you eat; hoping that it's not diseased or old.

I put faith in the Human race to bootstrap itself once we are all able to argue and question, and dissect arguements that are irrational.

t_wolves_fan

13th December 2006, 18:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 06:35 pm

You put your faith in people every day. When you drive on the road you put faith in other drivers not to stop suddenly, or cause an accedent. You put faith in your co-workers to support you, or help you (for whatever job you have.) You put faith in the farmers who grow your food, or the slaughterers who kill your food. You put faith in the food you eat; hoping that it's not diseased or old.

I put faith in the Human race to bootstrap itself once we are all able to argue and question, and dissect arguements that are irrational.
This is all true.

However, much of that "faith" is tempered by my own ambition and skill. For instance on the highway I assume most drivers don't know what they're doing so I drive accordingly.

Just I wash my vegetables and use a meat thermometer when I bbq.

I have faith in people in these arenas basically because I have to. If I didn't have faith that I would make it down the street, I'd never get to leave the house.

However, this does not yet mean I'm willing to trust people to do anymore than I already trust them with. Nor does it mean I'm naive enough to have faith that everyone will behave as I want them to. Driving is one thing, societal conformity to my enlightened vision is quite another.

Zero

13th December 2006, 19:03

I don't expect people to "conform to my enlightened vision" I hope that people will generally end up treating each other like human beings, and trusting each other. You keep making me out to be a dictator, I want nothing of the sort.

t_wolves_fan

13th December 2006, 19:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 07:03 pm
I don't expect people to "conform to my enlightened vision" I hope that people will generally end up treating each other like human beings, and trusting each other. You keep making me out to be a dictator, I want nothing of the sort.
Then certainly you understand that religion is going to be with us for a long time.

Will people be free to express their religion in public if your system is implemented?

Zero

13th December 2006, 19:17

Originally posted by "t_wolves_fan"+--> ("t_wolves_fan")Then certainly you understand that religion is going to be with us for a long time.[/b]Yes, I do. I also know that two hundred years ago suggesting that (if they knew the theory) the Big Bang could be a metaphor for 'Let there be light' would get you hung. With the introduction over the years of more and more secular schools, of more strictly enforced "separation of church and state", and such things dogmatic thinking has declined, and given way to a new generation of Liberal Theologians. This is progress, and for the most part these people don't feel the need that some dogmatic people do to forcefully convert people.

Will religion eventually peter off? I don't think so, actually some scientists don't think it will either (look at the article I posted here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60116)) however what is to say that we can't use this for good? The FSLN for instance.

"t_wolves_fan"
Will people be free to express their religion in public if your system is implemented?Well, isn't that a loaded sentence. :lol:

Disreguarding semantics, yes. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech. These basic of ideals are instrumental in any sort of enlightened society. Though if one wanted to build a church to a diety, I suppose it would deserve a vote. Common land is common land.

jasmine

14th December 2006, 00:12

Zero let me ask you a question (before I respond to the rest). I wrote:

Interestingly, Deepak Chopra, who I regard as a new age, Hollywood fake, is of the opinion that science will ultimately provide proof for the existence of God. Apart from the fact that I believe Chopra to be a money-grubbing fake, I reject this possibility.

You quoted:

science will ultimately provide proof for the existence of God.

And then you polemicised (to give it a grand term) against this. Anyone who wants the 'empirical truth' can check this.

She is assuming there is an end to science. I couldn't dissagree more.

Why did you purposely misrepresent what I said?

And, while I'm here, the abusive, imbecile, rat person, have I ever said I'm a woman?

Zero

14th December 2006, 01:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 12:12 am
Zero let me ask you a question (before I respond to the rest). I wrote:

Interestingly, Deepak Chopra, who I regard as a new age, Hollywood fake, is of the opinion that science will ultimately provide proof for the existence of God. Apart from the fact that I believe Chopra to be a money-grubbing fake, I reject this possibility.

You quoted:

science will ultimately provide proof for the existence of God.

And then you polemicised (to give it a grand term) against this. Anyone who wants the 'empirical truth' can check this.

She is assuming there is an end to science. I couldn't dissagree more.

Why did you purposely misrepresent what I said?

And, while I'm here, the abusive, imbecile, rat person, have I ever said I'm a woman?
Well, I didn't mean to miss-represent you, I don't believe that science will "prove God" either.

I wrote something up about the "end of science" awhile back, the way I figure it is that if there is an end to science, we will either A) Know God, or B) Know everything else without an ability to know God. Because God is infinite, and we are not, there is no way to know his existence. I suppose it could be argued that we can know of god, without knowing god, but the most basic element of scientific knowledge is the ability to act on this knowledge. How can you act on the knowledge that you know of, but cannot know? Until someone can come up with a way to test something you know of, without any knowledge of it, I guess we'll just be alone in the dark :lol: .

In this respect, not having an end to science isn't too terribly different, and will never be known for certain. ;)

jasmine

14th December 2006, 01:15

Zero - I am too tired now. I will reply tomorrow. Or maybe the day after. It's like talking to two different people.

Cryotank Screams

14th December 2006, 01:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 09:15 pm
Zero - I am too tired now. I will reply tomorrow. Or maybe the day after. It's like talking to two different people.
No, you just have no argument, sit here and debate, concede, or leave.

Jazzratt

14th December 2006, 01:46

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 14, 2006 01:43 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 14, 2006 01:43 am)
[email protected] 13, 2006 09:15 pm
Zero - I am too tired now. I will reply tomorrow. Or maybe the day after. It's like talking to two different people.
No, you just have no argument, sit here and debate, concede, or leave. [/b]
BE fair. She doesn't have an argument at the moment, that's what the day or two waiting period is for.

jasmine

14th December 2006, 11:23

t_wolves_fan, I don't have your ability to take people like Cryotank and Jazzratt seriously. Their arguments are the products of emotional and psychological disorders. I mean look at this:

sit here and debate, concede, or leave.

Where do you think you are Cryotank? The Oxford Union?

And that's the point. If you had any real skills or knowledge you would be doing something more interesting, lucrative and productive than posting here night after night.

Also if you really have three boyfriends how on earth do you manage to spend so much time here?

The truth is that in reply to my request for empirical proof of Marxism (or your version of it) you provided nothing. Absolutely nothing. Articles that elaborate your argument are not proof - they are your version of the bible, koran, torah, book of mormon etc.

You live inside your own head and I don't envy you.

A person with real debating skills seeks to convince the other of his or her argument. Debate is not mud wrestling. You, Cryotank, debate for yourself, to prove to yourself that you are brilliant, better than other people and so on. You don't even notice the other person's argument much less care about it.

Jazzrat - what are you really so angry about? You've no idea who I am. You don't even know whether I'm male or female. In fact you don't even know whether I exist. I could be a figment of someone's imagination.

Why do you get so infuriated because t_wolves_fan contradicts your arguments? Why does that make you so very angry? I assume that Cryotank was straight and that drives you into a fury?

Angry people have to find excuses for their anger and that is one of your reasons for coming here. You can give vent to your fury without consequence. Whatever was done to you in the past to make you so angry I didn't do it and neither did t_wolves_fan.

Cryotank, to go back to the mud wrestling analogy - you imagined you had me in a headlock, we were down in dirt and all you had to do was squeeze a little harder and I would be dead. But look now, I'm not there anymore. I've disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Did Jasmine ever exist? Or was it all in your mind?

t_wolves_fan

14th December 2006, 16:16

t_wolves_fan, I don't have your ability to take people like Cryotank and Jazzratt seriously. Their arguments are the products of emotional and psychological disorders.

I don't take them seriously either because their arguments are not serious and they have nothing serious to add to the political debate.

I actually find it entertaining to argue like this, which probably means I have some kind of disorder as well. But then given the success of the far left in allowing everything we do to be blamed on some societal ill or medical disorer and never our own responsibility, I guess we all do.

The truth is that in reply to my request for empirical proof of Marxism (or your version of it) you provided nothing. Absolutely nothing. Articles that elaborate your argument are not proof - they are your version of the bible, koran, torah, book of mormon etc.

You can't empirically prove a political theory.

Comrade J

14th December 2006, 16:24

The truth is that in reply to my request for empirical proof of Marxism (or your version of it) you provided nothing. Absolutely nothing. Articles that elaborate your argument are not proof - they are your version of the bible, koran, torah, book of mormon etc.
So by providing an article that sums up what they believe and why they believe it, they are providing no proof?

So if you asked me to explain the theory of relativity, and I quoted text from Einstein, it would be no proof because it's the words of Einstein, and not my own?

Wow, you really are fucking stupid. :huh:

jasmine

14th December 2006, 20:41

You can't empirically prove a political theory.

No, there are various competing theories all with their own evidence. Just as there is no scientific theory of history their is no scientific theory of social behaviour (psychology).

So by providing an article that sums up what they believe and why they believe it, they are providing no proof?

Of course not. Marxism claims to be a scientific analysis of human history that is capable of predicting future developments based on the past. Given that 160 years have passed since the writing of the Communist Manifesto it should be possible to explain easily how history has unfolded according to the scientific laws elaborated by Marx.

Unfortunately, Cryotank seems unable to do this. Jazzzratt seems even less capable.

So if you asked me to explain the theory of relativity, and I quoted text from Einstein, it would be no proof because it's the words of Einstein, and not my own?

Relativity is a theory. How do you prove relativity? I doubt Einstein would have claimed that because he said it, it was true.

The point here is that religious people have been required to provide empirical proof for their beliefs. The same standard is not applied to Marxists or Anarchists or variants of the two.

This is what is driving Cryotank and his little friends crazy - having to abide by their own standards.

Redmau5

14th December 2006, 20:57

Just as there is no scientific theory of history their is no scientific theory of social behaviour (psychology).

Seeing your so crazy about proving social sciences etc., could you kindly prove that there is no scientific theory of history or social behaviour?

jasmine

14th December 2006, 21:14

Seeing your so crazy about proving social sciences etc., could you kindly prove that there is no scientific theory of history or social behaviour?

Proving a negative is always difficult! But being right about where society is headed is even more difficult. How do you prove beyond doubt a psychological theory? I don't think it's possible.

There are innumerable, massively conflicting theories explaing human behaviour and history. If it were possible to prove one of these theories wouldn't we know about it?

All I'm asking is that you apply the same rigorous standards to your own arguments that you require from religious believers.

Zero

14th December 2006, 21:24

Jasmine, by acknowledging insults you give yourself up to be debated by them. I try not to insult people, the four pages of me vs t_wolves debating something or other about farming, and stimulus to industry is a testimate to that :lol: .

If you really don't want to be affected by insults, just respond to my post and ignore the others.

jasmine

14th December 2006, 21:31

If you really don't want to be affected by insults, just respond to my post and ignore the others.

I think you have made a good point Zero. But I'm really not used to being insulted like this. In the real world if you call someone a '****' you may end up in hospital. But of course in the real world Jazzratt doesn't do this. She comes here to vent her venom because there are no consequences.

Nevertheless, your advice is good advice and appreciated.

jasmine

14th December 2006, 21:46

Isn't it interesting Cryotank? I used to live in München too! Maybe we were nachbarn! Isn't that scary? Ich spreche Deutsch. Do you?

Also, I forgot, you are a pretentious, brain-dead, piece of shit.

Cryotank Screams

14th December 2006, 22:01

Where do you think you are Cryotank?

A message board where the fuck do you think you are?

Also if you really have three boyfriends how on earth do you manage to spend so much time here?

It's called different work schedules, and I live with them, and the computer is right near the tv, so basically I can post here and there, while hanging out; I type out posts fairly quickly, plus we only go out to shows, and bars occasionally, I'm not really into that scene, plus excessive drinking makes me sick, plus I rather stay home, hang out, and have sex, then go out, get wasted, and then have to try to manage piercing and hang over, :P.

If you had any real skills or knowledge you would be doing something more interesting, lucrative and productive than posting here night after night.

So me posting on a daily is making me non-productive how? Just because I choose to sit and debate people instead of feeding them bullshit of "oh, I can't debate, I will continue tomorrow," two days in a row, doesn't mean I do not have a life outside this box, however I do not feel the need to prove myself to you by listing my daily routine and or life, therefore I will say simply, I do a lot more than you think I do, ;) .

The truth is that in reply to my request for empirical proof of Marxism (or your version of it) you provided nothing.

No, that would be you, I provided loads od information that could be used to discuss, you just choose to ignore it because your immature.

Articles that elaborate your argument are not proof - they are your version of the bible, koran, torah, book of mormon etc.

There is where you are wrong, by providing articles and books (and some of those books I posted where science books), that explain our position and giving our evidence for our conclusions is proof, in the sense that we are saying this is our proof, and our position, to which is the most accurate hypothesis, and is based upon this evidence.

If you want some further proof, be more specific, because it appears that you won't be satisfied unless I shoved the bloody holy grail down your throat.

You live inside your own head and I don't envy you.

I live in the here and now, my life is dictated by reason, logic, science, indulgence, and everything worldly and carnal, I apologize if you choose to live in ignorance, bowing down to spectral tyrants, and spiritual pipe-dreams.

A person with real debating skills seeks to convince the other of his or her argument.

I tried, you choose to not engage into it, I provided information which I would have assumed you would either discuss or try to refute, you did nothing, I explained things which I assumed you would discuss or refute, you did nothing, no you choose to scream "proof! proof!" and stay ignorant of the debate followed by your usual puerile insults.

Debate is not mud wrestling.

I combine both insults, and honest debate, I see no reason why this is a problem, I mean I would assume since this is a message board you would try to divorce yourself from emotional debates as much as possible, I mean granted it can get heated occasionaly, but to the extent that you have demonstrated shows me that you should try to not get so emotional, and bitter.

You, Cryotank, debate for yourself, to prove to yourself that you are brilliant, better than other people and so on.

No, I debate to test my theories, hypothesis on subjects, and to obtain more knowledge on stuff, everything I do on here is in the pursuit of more knowledge and skills I need, in order to help with revolutionary efforts, and to be perfectly honest, I think a lot of people on here know more than I do, and I both envy and respect them, which is why this has become my favorite board to post on, because everyone is generally intellectual, and pratical.

You don't even notice the other person's argument much less care about it.

Really? Then how come in every debate I engage in, I pick the other person's post sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph? I notice, and then try to refute it, hence debating.

I assume that Cryotank was straight and that drives you into a fury

I was straight? I do not have a clue what your getting at with this one, it's a well known fact that I'm not straight.

Cryotank, to go back to the mud wrestling analogy - you imagined you had me in a headlock, we were down in dirt and all you had to do was squeeze a little harder and I would be dead. But look now, I'm not there anymore. I've disappeared in a puff of smoke.

Were you on pot when you wrote this? If so, must have been something righteous, :P .

Don't debate me further, stick with your and Zero's debate, if you wish to have a debate, make another thread or something.

jasmine

14th December 2006, 22:18

There is where you are wrong, by providing articles and books (and some of those books I posted where science books), that explain our position and giving our evidence for our conclusionfoos is proof, in the sense that we are saying this is our proof, and our position, to which is the most accurate hypothesis, and is based upon this evidence.There is where you are wrong, by providing articles and books (and some of those books I posted where science books), that explain our position and giving our evidence for our conclusions is proof, in the sense that we are saying this is our proof, and our position, to which is the most accurate hypothesis, and is based upon this evidence.

What is our proof? Who is this "our"?

jasmine

14th December 2006, 22:20

Don't debate me further, stick with your and Zero's debate, if you wish to have a debate, make another thread or something.

Zero and I don't have a debate. So what do you suggest?

Jazzratt

14th December 2006, 22:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 10:20 pm

Don't debate me further, stick with your and Zero's debate, if you wish to have a debate, make another thread or something.

Zero and I don't have a debate. So what do you suggest?
Dunno about cryotank, but I'd suggest you browse this subforum and find another debate. That is after all the whole point in this site. Who knows, maybe you'll come up with something of interest.

Cryotank Screams

14th December 2006, 22:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 06:20 pm
Zero and I don't have a debate. So what do you suggest?
I thought you and Zero were debating, my mistake I guess, and also I agree with Jazzratt's suggestion.

Zero

15th December 2006, 00:35

Oh, I was willing to keep on going, but whatever. :)

t_wolves_fan

15th December 2006, 13:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 10:33 pm
Dunno about cryotank, but I'd suggest you browse this subforum and find another debate. That is after all the whole point in this site.
Which is why I find it curious that opposing opinions drive you into such irrational hysteria.

Jazzratt

15th December 2006, 14:09

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+December 15, 2006 01:58 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ December 15, 2006 01:58 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 10:33 pm
Dunno about cryotank, but I'd suggest you browse this subforum and find another debate. That is after all the whole point in this site.
Which is why I find it curious that opposing opinions drive you into such irrational hysteria. [/b]
Because for the most part they're espoused by utter imebiciles.

t_wolves_fan

15th December 2006, 14:14

Originally posted by Jazzratt+December 15, 2006 02:09 pm--> (Jazzratt @ December 15, 2006 02:09 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 01:58 pm

[email protected] 14, 2006 10:33 pm
Dunno about cryotank, but I'd suggest you browse this subforum and find another debate. That is after all the whole point in this site.
Which is why I find it curious that opposing opinions drive you into such irrational hysteria.
Because for the most part they're espoused by utter imebiciles. [/b]
You don't know that, you've never met the people making these arguments.

At best you can think their arguments are stupid, but you cannot assume their arguments are stupid because they're stupid. Maybe they, like you, just don't know a whole lot about politics or history or how the real world works. We are dealing mostly with a bunch of teens and college-aged kids here, you know.

Maybe they're actually smart and are simply better at other things, like you. I'm sure you're good at something.

jasmine

15th December 2006, 20:45

If you want some further proof, be more specific, because it appears that you won't be satisfied unless I shoved the bloody holy grail down your throat.

Do you actually have the Holy Grail? Tell me, is it a chalice, a bowl or Mary herself?

I agree Cryotank, sadly, it's time to go our separate ways. The so-called proof for your theories (whatever they are exactly) exists only in your head.

This is not a place I wish to go.

There is no science of history. All you have are your confused beliefs.

Zero, if you lay out what you think the issues are I'll happily discuss them.

Redmau5

16th December 2006, 00:11

There is no science of history

Hundreds and hundreds of sociologists and historians have written volumes and volumes of work detailing the science of society through the ages.

You are a nobody posting on a message board, so I think I know who i'll side with.

When you come up with your grand thesis refuting the claims made by the likes of Marx, then you might have some credibility.

You have yet to come up with anything other than 'Marxism isn't a science', yet you have not given any reason as to why you think it isn't. Marx laid out his reasons as to why he thought he was using a scientific analysis of history. You on the other hand, have done nothing other than repeat the same shit over and over again. Marx told us why his method was scientific, now you tell us why it isn't.

jasmine

16th December 2006, 18:51

Marx told us why his method was scientific, now you tell us why it isn't.

Compare Marx's predictions to what has actually happened. It's that simple.

Were you on pot when you wrote this? If so, must have been something righteous

Cryotank, I've been dropping hints for some time now. You have a brain with all the subtlety of an old army boot.

bloody_capitalist_sham

17th December 2006, 00:57

Compare Marx's predictions to what has actually happened.

What has actually happened?

Cryotank Screams

17th December 2006, 01:26

Cryotank, I've been dropping hints for some time now. You have a brain with all the subtlety of an old army boot.

Not, really, you just try to use metaphors, analogies, and obviously looked up "big words," to give off the appearance of you actually being semi-intellectual, I know what you generally meant by what you wrote, I just found it so completely idiotic, it sounded like something someone would have written if they were ripped out of their mind, hence why I said what I said.

Also, quit insulting me, honestly, if we were actually debating I wouldn't care, but come the fuck on, how immature do you have to be, to keep insulting someone behind there back over and over again. why do it? Are you that bitter?

The so-called proof for your theories (whatever they are exactly) exists only in your head.

And everyone else’s head and eyes, except yours because you refuse to recognize my arguments, and theories, because it acts as an enema image, and you seem to be to reluctant to let go of your precious little meme, and beliefs.

There is no science of history.

What an idiotic statement, history is the chronology of reality and existence as seen by the human species, and science is the study of existence and reality and how it works, and basically is reality, therefore it is only logical to conclude that history and science have an interconnecting relationship.

Also historical events are connected to scientific research, theories, and such.

All you have are your confused beliefs.

So let's see, everyone here basically agrees with me, scientists, Marxists, and Materialist philosophers agree with me, and all my beliefs are based on scientific, psychological, historical, philosophical, and economic analysis, what are yours based on? Fairy tales, parrot arguments, pseudo-science, and bullshitry.

Cryotank Screams

17th December 2006, 01:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 02:51 pm
Compare Marx's predictions to what has actually happened. It's that simple.

Look at his analysis of historical events, just because Communist states failed doesn't mean that Marxism is scientific, nor does it make invalid as a theory, you have to analyize what went wrong, and why they failed, and it will be clear, it wasn't so much a fault on theory so much but rather more of external forces, acting against it, from both within and without.

jasmine

17th December 2006, 14:20

Also, quit insulting me

Agreed, as long as you quit insulting me.

Hundreds and hundreds of sociologists and historians have written volumes and volumes of work detailing the science of society through the ages.

How many versions of the laws of physics are there. As far as I know there is only one basic version - obviously there are disputes when new fields are investigated.

How many schools of thought are there on how society works, how it is structured, how history has developed? There is a subject called social science but how many different versions of this science are there?

I doubt many people working in this area would claim their books and papers were the scientific truth. In the world of sociology, psychology, economics etc. there is no consensus. In fact there is the complete opposite. And Marxism, of whatever version, is marginalised.

And everyone else’s head and eyes, except yours because you refuse to recognize my arguments, and theories, because it acts as an enema image, and you seem to be to reluctant to let go of your precious little meme, and beliefs.

No Cryotank not everyone agrees with you, not by a long way. Maybe everyone in your tiny peer group but out there in the big, wide world almost nobody agrees with Marxism. Besides which there is no single, coherent version of Marxism to agree with. There is a multiplicity of competing versions. Which one is correct? Yours?

What has actually happened?

Almost everything except the proletarian revolution. The petty bourgeoisie was not sucked into the working class, the working class did not undergo continual immiseration until it was driven to overthrow its oppressors.

Of course it is true that social reality is always far more complex than any theory can represent but I think it's difficult to square the capitalism of today with Marx's views.

I think the reason Marxism has split so often is that Marxists were so often caught unawares by developments. The Third international emerged from the Second because the German Social Democracy supported the German war effort but there was already a split in the Russian SDLP - to cut a long story short the result was Lenin's vanguard party, something I guess you, Cryotank, do not agree with.

The development of Stalinism gave rise to the feeble fourth international and Trotyskism. This is to leave aside the more libertarian splits around the writings of Luxembourg, Pannokeok etc.

So by the end of the 1930's Marxism was already in considerable dissaray. Which of these versions was the true Marxism?

When we get to the post WW2 era with the revolutions in China, Korea, Vietnam and Cuba that mimicked Stalin's centralised economy and the theoretical writings justifying these revolutions Marxism as a coherent theory doesn't really exist at all.

In the west there was the rise of Eurocommunism, Athusser, obscure debates about the Epistomological split etc. Trotkyism split in a dozen different directions.

I'm sure I've missed quite a lot out but how is it possible to say what Marxism is even, much less claim it as a science?

Look at his analysis of historical events, just because Communist states failed doesn't mean that Marxism is scientific, nor does it make invalid as a theory, you have to analyize what went wrong, and why they failed, and it will be clear, it wasn't so much a fault on theory so much but rather more of external forces, acting against it, from both within and without.

If you take Marx's view on the development of human society up to and including the emergence of capitalism I think it's very interesting and pursuasive. I don't see though how it can be verified.

His predictions of what would follow were a departure from previous historical development. Now, for the very first time, the oppressed, majority class would become the driving force of history. I simply don't see that the last 150 years or so bears that out. In Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba etc. a party bureaucracy ruled, in the west capitalism survived two world wars and has gone on to expand enormously.

I really don't see any convincing evidence to suggest that the working class is up to the tasks set by Marx. I wish it were otherwise.

Cryotank Screams

17th December 2006, 15:12

Agreed, as long as you quit insulting me.

Agreed, I would also like to say I appreciate the civility of your post (which I will discuss below), and the fact that you provided something that can be discussed and debated, this is what I wanted from the beginning, your provide your half, I provide mine and we mutually discuss, argue, and debate it.

No Cryotank not everyone agrees with you, not by a long way. Maybe everyone in your tiny peer group but out there in the big, wide world almost nobody agrees with Marxism. Besides which there is no single, coherent version of Marxism to agree with. There is a multiplicity of competing versions. Which one is correct? Yours?

You don't have to agree with Marxism, to know and view that it is scientific and based on science, it wouldn't be talked about in political science classes, economic classes, colleges, schools, and such if it wasn't; though many may disagree with it, they again still see at as both scientific and based on scientific deduction, analysis, and reasoning.

Yes, there is many interpretations of Marxism, however the still follow the same basic paradigm of Marxism, with just differences on various subjects, but again still follow the basic structure and tenets of Marxism.

Your last sentence is where you are wrong, or rather where your confused, as I have said before I am not a Marxist, therefore I do not have a Marxist view of Socialism, agree or apart with/of any sect of Marxism, nor do I agree with Marxist theory on Socialist revolution or post-revolutionary society, or the methods used to obtain Socialism, I am an Anarchist (a somewhat staunch one at that), and my view on Socialism is radically and generally comepletly different than Marx's view, which can be seen most greatly with him forcing Bakunin and the "Bakunists/Collectivists," out of the first international, and the whole Marx vs. Bakunin feud.

I just have a scholarly and intellectual respect for Marxism but I mainly think that even though our theoretical differences, it is still a legitimate form of Socialist theory, just not one I think will achieve the final goals of Socialism the best way or quickly.

The development of Stalinism

There is no such thing as Stalinism, because Stalin did not contribute or further develop Marxism-Leninism, unlike say Mao, who did take Marxism-Leninism further and made his own theories, and took his interpretation further then they set paradigm of Marxism-Leninism, Stalin was however a Marxist-Leninist, however there is come continuation, and discontinuation arguments.

China, Korea, Vietnam

Korea yes, because it was set into place by pro-Stalin Communists, and under the direct and watchful eye of the USSR, and followed juche.

As for cuba economically speaking that is debatable, however theoretical terms they followed more of a form of Castorism, Marxism, or Marxism-Leninism.

China followed Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and followed the system Mao put into place for china, and not a system that mimicked Stalin's which would have been say the "Socialism in one country," theory, but one rather that was tailor fitted for the chinese people, and was different from Stalins.

As for vietnam it it was backed by both china and the USSR during the war, but I do not think it mimicked Stalin's USSR, in theoretics or economics, though I am not terribly familiar with the DRVN, and it's history.

I'm sure I've missed quite a lot out but how is it possible to say what Marxism is even, much less claim it as a science?

Marxism is scientific theory, and as for most theories, it has gone through trial and error, then is revised and Marxist analysis of historical events, and see what happened then try to ensure said mistakes won't happen again, I mean look at the light bulb do you know how long it took Edison to get his version down just right? Do you know how long it took for us to get the modern light bulb through trial and error?

Therefore it can be said within this capacity that though there has been some error and failure, it is still scientific just as all scientific pursuits of the past.

I don't see though how it can be verified.

They are verified because the happened, or rather you can take historical events, use Marxist analysis, and see if what happened coincided with it, and if it does, then thus it's verified.

Now, for the very first time, the oppressed, majority class would become the driving force of history. I simply don't see that the last 150 years or so bears that out. In Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba etc. a party bureaucracy ruled, in the west capitalism survived two world wars and has gone on to expand enormously.

This is true, and I attribute this mainly due to Marxist-Leninist theories, and have given many criticisms on all the above nations mentioned, and said what I think what went wrong, and why the proletariat, and working class did not have power, and how said nations were a functioning hypocrisy that betrayed the revolution and the proletariat.

His predictions of what would follow were a departure from previous historical development.

However, his predictions may or may not be able to be transferred to said nations, considering largely said nations followed Marxism-Leninism, not orthodox Marxism, and were subjected to unpredicted external forces, that may or may not have been predicted by Marx himself.

I really don't see any convincing evidence to suggest that the working class is up to the tasks set by Marx.

The above is open to individual interpretation, and dependent upon which theory and Socialist sect you hold/support.

jasmine

17th December 2006, 19:33

You don't have to agree with Marxism, to know and view that it is scientific and based on science, it wouldn't be talked about in political science classes, economic classes, colleges, schools, and such if it wasn't; though many may disagree with it, they again still see at as both scientific and based on scientific deduction, analysis, and reasoning.

I don't know what you mean by scientific. Of course Marx is discussed in political 'science' classes. He's a major theorist. But many others are also discussed, Locke, Hume etc. are they also scientific? To me "political science" is a contradiction in terms. There are academic disciplines applied but political theories, in the end, are a matter of subjective analysis.

For example, Robert Conquest (I know he's principally a historian) takes a radically different view than Leon Trotsky of the Russian revolution. Is one being more scientific than the other or do they just have different ideological starting points?

Yes, there is many interpretations of Marxism, however the still follow the same basic paradigm of Marxism, with just differences on various subjects, but again still follow the basic structure and tenets of Marxism.

People with different interpretations of Marxism have been know to murder each other. Trotsky and Stalin did not have the same basic paradigm. They were mortal enemies.

I am an Anarchist (a somewhat staunch one at that), and my view on Socialism is radically and generally comepletly different than Marx's view, which can be seen most greatly with him forcing Bakunin and the "Bakunists/Collectivists," out of the first international, and the whole Marx vs. Bakunin feud.

This confuses me even further. You can of course say that Lenin was not a Marxist but he did imprison and execute anarchists. I recall, I hope correctly, foreshadowing this, that Bakunin described Marx as a hopeless authoritarian. I am not an expert on Bakunin but I think he believed in natural, individual freedom, the right of human beings to be their natural selves in accordance with nature.

Marx saw the individual as a part of the collective, responsible to the collective, a product not of natural laws but of economic development.

Where Marx wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition to communism Bakunin wanted the abolition of the state immediately.

Isn't this an unbridgable difference? How can both be scientifically correct?

There is no such thing as Stalinism, because Stalin did not contribute or further develop Marxism-Leninism, unlike say Mao, who did take Marxism-Leninism further and made his own theories, and took his interpretation further then they set paradigm of Marxism-Leninism, Stalin was however a Marxist-Leninist, however there is come continuation, and discontinuation arguments.

Socialism in one country was Stalin's contribution to Marxism as well as the mass murder/starvation of the peasants (Kulaks and others) and the gulags for his political opponents.

I find it difficult understand how you, an anarchist, can reference Stalin and Mao so neutrally. How long would the life of an anarchist activist have lasted under either regime?

Marxism is scientific theory, and as for most theories, it has gone through trial and error, then is revised and Marxist analysis of historical events, and see what happened then try to ensure said mistakes won't happen again, I mean look at the light bulb do you know how long it took Edison to get his version down just right? Do you know how long it took for us to get the modern light bulb through trial and error?

Human history cannot be compared to the invention of the light bulb. This suggests that Marxism is somehow being tested and transformed into the the perfect scientific theory. Marxism has been tested and found to be wrong many times.

They are verified because the happened, or rather you can take historical events, use Marxist analysis, and see if what happened coincided with it, and if it does, then thus it's verified.

Marxist analysis indicates that Bakunin was wrong.

In the end social/political theory can only be tested by its predictions. Marx was aware of this when he made his predictions. In fact it is the reason he made his predictions. He was wrong - this does not mean we have to discard his complete analysis or every observation, but the proletarian revoltion does not seem to be the agency of social transformation.

Cryotank Screams

17th December 2006, 20:24

I don't know what you mean by scientific.

Scientific in the capacity, that it follows the scientific methodology, and has a relation to science, which most if not all fields of human studies has a relationship with science.

But many others are also discussed, Locke, Hume etc. are they also scientific?

In a sense yes, if they follow the definition above and there theories are based upon scientific deduction, logic, reasoning, and analysis, coupled with proof.

Do I personally believe them to be scientifically sound? Not necessarily, if they follow the definition above they would be, (broadly speaking), however that is open to debate.

For example, Robert Conquest (I know he's principally a historian) takes a radically different view than Leon Trotsky of the Russian revolution. Is one being more scientific than the other or do they just have different ideological starting points?

Depends upon their methodology and reasoning.

Trotsky and Stalin did not have the same basic paradigm. They were mortal enemies.

Stalin had Trotsky assassinated because Trotsky was a threat to the USSR, because even in exile Trotsky feverishly wrote down his thoughts and criticisms of the now Stalin lead USSR, and of Stalin himself, this coupled with their past feud and fight for power over the USSR, and even before that, was the reason for Trotsky's death, and not just because of ideological differences.

This confuses me even further. You can of course say that Lenin was not a Marxist but he did imprison and execute anarchists.

Yes, Lenin did prove his treachery against the Anarchists of russia, and had them executed, imprisoned, or exiled.

I recall, I hope correctly, foreshadowing this, that Bakunin described Marx as a hopeless authoritarian.

Maybe not word for word, but essentially yes.

I am not an expert on Bakunin but I think he believed in natural, individual freedom, the right of human beings to be their natural selves in accordance with nature.

He did not believe in "natural rights," or any of those you listed involving natural [X] and nature, but he did believe in the freedom for everyone.

Marx saw the individual as a part of the collective, responsible to the collective, a product not of natural laws but of economic development

To an extent Bakunin believed this too, I believe.

Where Marx wanted the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transition to communism Bakunin wanted the abolition of the state immediately.

Correct.

Isn't this an unbridgable difference?

To a broad degree yes.

How can both be scientifically correct?

See definition above, I can list my opinions, on which is based more on science than the other but that would just be a sectarian bias.

Socialism in one country was Stalin's contribution to Marxism as well as the mass murder/starvation of the peasants (Kulaks and others) and the gulags for his political opponents.

The things you listed after Stalin's theory of "Socialism in one country," are not theoretical contributions, but policies acted by Stalin, Stalin contributed only two things to Marxism.

I find it difficult understand how you, an anarchist, can reference Stalin and Mao so neutrally. How long would the life of an anarchist activist have lasted under either regime?

I spoke neutrally, because I see no reason why I shouldn't have, though I have severe disagreements with both Stalin and Mao, that doesn't mean I am going to misrepresent them, and go into a zealous and biased sectarian rant while discussing the theoretics of the two, just to make my personal position and argument look better, that would be intellectually dishonest, and false would it not?

Anarchists were banned under both regimes from what I have read however I still stand by the above statement.

This suggests that Marxism is somehow being tested and transformed into the the perfect scientific theory.

It is by Marxists of all varieties.

Marxism has been tested and found to be wrong many times.

As I said before, was this due to external interaction, or upon the Communist nation itself? Did each Communist nation have the opportunity to grow and function on it's own, based solely upon Marxism? Or did it have to make a radical change, and transition from a system that was working within and without, and said system had been in place for years, coupled with other various problems, the fall of Communist states, was not due totally in part by theoretics.

Marxist analysis indicates that Bakunin was wrong.

This again would be based upon personal interpretation, I was arguing from a neutral Leftist/Scholar standpoint, and was trying to remain neutral, so as to give a clear representation of the argument.

but the proletarian revoltion does not seem to be the agency of social transformation.

That is debatable, and would depend on what exactly are you stating.

jasmine

18th December 2006, 13:08

Scientific in the capacity, that it follows the scientific methodology, and has a relation to science, which most if not all fields of human studies has a relationship with science.

I think Marx believed his method to be more than this. He believed he had developed the scientific method to be used in the study of human history, politics and economics. Marxism was seen as an all-encompassing analysis of human society. Just as scientists later uncovered the laws of physics Marx had uncovered, so he claimed, the laws of human development.

This is what I'm disputing.

Certainly Engles believed that Marxism had overcome subjectivity (Socialism, Utopian and Scientific). Marxism, he argues, provides an objective view of human social relations. Marxism is a science like any natural science.

Do you believe this?

When Marxism is taught in a political science class Marx's claims about his work being scientific in the same sense as the natural science are certainly discussed but probably almost never endorsed.

Marxism is scientific theory, and as for most theories, it has gone through trial and error, then is revised and Marxist analysis of historical events, and see what happened then try to ensure said mistakes won't happen again, I mean look at the light bulb do you know how long it took Edison to get his version down just right? Do you know how long it took for us to get the modern light bulb through trial and error?

I wanted to come back to this. Who is revising Marxism? Who is deciding what should and should not be taken from, for example, Maoism and be added to the theory?

This seems to be a quite metaphysical concept because there is no longer an International that embodies Marxism and its history.

Stalin contributed only two things to Marxism.

What were they?

As I said before, was this due to external interaction, or upon the Communist nation itself? Did each Communist nation have the opportunity to grow and function on it's own, based solely upon Marxism? Or did it have to make a radical change, and transition from a system that was working within and without, and said system had been in place for years, coupled with other various problems, the fall of Communist states, was not due totally in part by theoretics.

As an anarchist, supporter of Bakunin, I'm surprised you see China and the Soviet Union (amongst others) as communist states. Of course a version of Marxism was their official ideology and if you accept the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat you could describe these states as some sort of workers states - but isn't communim something different? Doesn't this describe a society where the repressive class state has been abolished?

Cryotank Screams

20th December 2006, 21:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 09:08 am
I think Marx believed his method to be more than this. He believed he had developed the scientific method to be used in the study of human history, politics and economics.

Well, regardless of which methodology he was using and or invented his studies where still based upon using a scientific method, or a similar alternative, thus making it scientific.

Do you believe this?

To an extent yes.

When Marxism is taught in a political science class Marx's claims about his work being scientific in the same sense as the natural science are certainly discussed but probably almost never endorsed.

Well, not very many people in colleges (though contrary to popular image and assumption), would endorse Marx in any sort of capacity, at the very least they would discuss him in a intellectual manner with out bashing him, but I highly doubt they would give any sort of endorsement, or view him favorably do to personal ignorance, and prejudice.

I wanted to come back to this. Who is revising Marxism? Who is deciding what should and should not be taken from, for example, Maoism and be added to the theory?

Marxists are revising Marxism, and as to who decides this, it would depend upon which individual you talked to, and from what specific sect and view point the hold, and in regards to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, it is widely agreed that Mao made enough personal contributions, and advancements, to qualify as a new sect, and or branch, and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists would argue that he to Marxism-Leninism, and advanced it further, and is the most advanced version of Marxism to date.

This seems to be a quite metaphysical concept because there is no longer an International that embodies Marxism and its history.

It's not metaphysical it's theoretical, it deciding upon which theory should be accepted by the sect, as the body of theoretics for their movement, party, and what have you, and though there is not really Communist nations still in existence, accept maybe cuba (which is debatable), there is still enough information, and historical evidence to analyze and discuss, and learn from, and apply that to a modern revolution.

What were they?

I. Aggravation of the Class Struggle along with the development of Socialism.
II. Socialism in One Country.

As an anarchist, supporter of Bakunin

Though I like the theories of Bakunin, and think a lot of them are valid, I am not a "banner waving," supporter of Bakunin, I am more of a "banner waving," supporter of Kropotkin, considering I agree primarily with his views, version of Anarchism, theories, analysis of given topics, and such.

I'm surprised you see China and the Soviet Union (amongst others) as communist states.

I see them as initially Communist, as the years went on, and such I see them more as state capitalist, or just plain crypto-capitalist.

Of course a version of Marxism was their official ideology

It was actually Marxism-Leninism.

if you accept the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat you could describe these states as some sort of workers states

I don't, I think dictatorship of the proletariat, is actually a myth, and is really just dictatorship of the rulers, therefore I think the whole concept of a worker's state, is a farce, and quite frankly an impossibility.

but isn't communim something different? Doesn't this describe a society where the repressive class state has been abolished?

Actually Communism is basically Marxism, and follows Marxist philosophy, thought, politics, and such, the final goals of Communism is to abolish the state the just see a transitionary period is necessary to achieve this final goal.

jasmine

21st December 2006, 07:47

Well, regardless of which methodology he was using and or invented his studies where still based upon using a scientific method, or a similar alternative, thus making it scientific.

You don't understand the basic issue here. Marx and Engels claimed to have uncovered objective laws that dictated the course of human history. If you don't believe me read 'Socialism Utopian and Scientific' by Engels.

I'm saying these laws don't exist.

To an extent yes.

I'll take this as 'don't know'

I highly doubt they would give any sort of endorsement, or view him favorably do to personal ignorance, and prejudice.

A lot of college professors and students know a good deal more about Marxism than you do.

it is widely agreed that Mao made enough personal contributions, and advancements, to qualify as a new sect, and or branch

Widely agreed by who? Your friends?

Marxists are revising Marxism, and as to who decides this, it would depend upon which individual you talked to, and from what specific sect and view point the hold

The reality is that the Marxist movement has almost disappeared. What remains is a scattering of tiny bickering sects.

In general it is true that a scientific theory can be refined as new evidence appears. It is also the case that should the evidence show the theory to be false it will be abandoned. History has shown Marxism to be false (both in its scientific pretensions and as a guide to political practice) which is why it no longer has any influence.

Though I like the theories of Bakunin, and think a lot of them are valid, I am not a "banner waving," supporter of Bakunin, I am more of a "banner waving," supporter of Kropotkin, considering I agree primarily with his views, version of Anarchism, theories, analysis of given topics, and such.

I think left-wing politics is your hobby.

I don't, I think dictatorship of the proletariat, is actually a myth, and is really just dictatorship of the rulers, therefore I think the whole concept of a worker's state, is a farce, and quite frankly an impossibility.

So you don't agree with Marxism at all.

Actually Communism is basically Marxism, and follows Marxist philosophy, thought, politics, and such, the final goals of Communism is to abolish the state the just see a transitionary period is necessary to achieve this final goal.

Actually Communism for Marx and Engels is synonomous with the state having 'withered away' - the CIA described China as communist but Marx would not have done so.

Your thinking is extremely muddled and often ill-informed.

BurnTheOliveTree

21st December 2006, 07:47

Bit of an off topic discussion chaps. :)

Let's get back to the Big G.

-Alex

jasmine

21st December 2006, 08:05

Bit of an off topic discussion chaps.

Can't argue with that.

Vincent J.

30th December 2006, 12:53

My opinion on this subject:
I fail to see what's wrong with religion. And I can't understand how one can be against religion. To say you're against religion is like saying "I'm against the fact that people create a vision about the universe". A lot of people find support and philosofy in there. Churches and mosques (etc. the media to bring religion to the people) on the other hand suck. They can easily twist and turn believers to their will to make profit out of them and they can force opinions into the followers.
I think religion should be a very personal thing and people must be made easy to 'create' their own. So it's wrong in my eyes when someone who is born in a strict christian family doesn't have much chances to nót become christian.

I myself interpret the word "God" very differently from others who see "God" as some leader up in the sky who only arranges the "good" things in the world.
In my eyes God is everything. If something isn't in the "will" of "God" it simply does not exist. By saying "It's the will of God" it's the same as saying "Because the universe is the universe and things go as they go".
So God is responsible for everything; all the pain, all the joy, everything.
Though you can say God is responsible for all that is good, because everything is good, because if it isn't; It wouldn't be. But that's another story :)
It may sound stupid or anything to you, but it's that simple in the way I see things.

So like the way I form my own visions about how I think the world is, everyone should do.
After all you can't be sure someone other then yourself thinks, you only know of yourself that you think and that's why only you can create what to believe in