Freedom of speech? [Archive]

Jazzratt

31st March 2007, 23:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:30 pm
It's pretty damn cowardly not allowing conservatives to post in board sections other than this.
Don't be a twat. You know full well that you'd just come and disrupt the board.

Way to be "open-minded".
Sorry, I think you were looking for a Liberal forum.
If a peoples feels the need to restrict the airing of others opinions on subjects its just cowardice.
You are airing your opinion, dolt.
But then again, what would I expect from lefties?
I have no idea. Given that you're probably an ill-educated hick I would hazard that you would expect us to kill everyone and build attractive displays with their skulls?
Honestly. Eh, I think I'll post wherever I feel anyway.
Go for it. What will happen is your posts will be removed and you will loose the ability to post anywhere other than here. If you think this is unfair please offer a reasoned argument as to why or storm off ina huff.
Then you can silence me
You know that you're just being silly now? You won't be "silenced", cretin, you will still be able to say whatever inane shit comes to mind, you just won't be able to do it where it would be an undue disruption.
and be all proud of your ability to restrict free speech.
Are you familiar with the term 'hyperbole' at all?
But of what limited mental capacity must one be, where one's opinions are so misguided, that you'd have to stop others from expressing theirs, for fear of being mad a fool of.
The last thing I fear, especially from someone with such salient backwardness is being "mad" a fool of. Also, though it is probably quite correct to use "one" in that context it looks very clunky and you would possibly do better to use "you" anyway as you are addressing a particular group, namely us.

RedAnarchist

31st March 2007, 23:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:39 pm
To answer TAKN, that is me representin' my little brother, I've long retired from military service. Oh, but what I'd give to show Iran a thing or two.
Oh, I'm sure you would. Destroying civilian's lifes just because you hate their government, like the US did in Vietnam, much of Latin America, Afghanistan and Iraq. Its always the civilians who suffer most in war, but poor little America can't have them not being policed by Washington.

Jazzratt

31st March 2007, 23:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:39 pm
To answer TAKN, that is me representin' my little brother, I've long retired from military service. Oh, but what I'd give to show Iran a thing or two.
Tell me, are you somehow deluded enough to believe that by showing Iran "a thing or two" you will somehow either A) be defending some greater good (freedom, democracy, whatever) or B) Defending America from some ill defined threat.

bloody_capitalist_sham

31st March 2007, 23:47

I hope every American soldier gets strung up by the Iraqi's and burned alive.

have a nice day :P

Comrade J

31st March 2007, 23:51

How is it a healthy discussion if only one set of viewpoints is tolerated?

I totally agree. Which is why we have so many different viewpoints from various leftists. This is, after all, a "revolutionary leftist" forum, so we're here to discuss how society will be post-revolution and so on. You'll find that if I went on a conservative forum and posted my political views, I'd be banned (or restricted to their opposing ideologies section, if they even had one) which I couldn't exactly argue with - they're just debating their politics amongst themselves, and the same applies to any political forum.

I mean, I can understand that you're afraid that your opinions will be shown for the true shenanigans that they are, but please, allow us common-sensers to refute the obvious!

Well if anyone was going to refute our beliefs, it certainly wouldn't be you :lol:

To answer TAKN, that is me representin' my little brother, I've long retired from military service. Oh, but what I'd give to show Iran a thing or two.

Hahaha, you're pleased your little brother is fighting a war against an unwelcoming civilian population who want him dead at the roadside? Why? I wish them luck anyway, send my love to your mother when little Jimmy comes back in a box "for his country" :D

AmericaFirst

31st March 2007, 23:52

Hah, I hear political correctness is running rampant there too.... Oh well. But I must congratulate you two so far on your civility, truth be told I expected to just be smashed with insults, I'm fully prepared for that to happen sooner rather than later, but so far I'm pretty impressed. Now for me to start some real debates! (I won't troll if y'all won't either)

But honestly, as a hard-working american, I've gone from the son of a single-mom waitress, who could give me and my brothers very very little, through the military, in which I gained priceless skills and discipline, and I am now a very sucessful developer. I've worked hard as hell, and I never asked for a handout, not once, and now my traditional family structure and I are prosperous. I'm able to send my children to private school, vacation regularly, my old lady even gets to stay home and watch soaps all day (If she watches the View Di-Vorce! haha). Sure it took hard work but I made it. Im interested to find out the leftist socialist view on why I pay taxes out the ass for handouts. I worked for this, now I have to give some away? Unfair!

RedAnarchist

31st March 2007, 23:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:52 pm
Hah, I hear political correctness is running rampant there too.... Oh well. But I must congratulate you two so far on your civility, truth be told I expected to just be smashed with insults, I'm fully prepared for that to happen sooner rather than later, but so far I'm pretty impressed. Now for me to start some real debates! (I won't troll if y'all won't either)

But honestly, as a hard-working american, I've gone from the son of a single-mom waitress, who could give me and my brothers very very little, through the military, in which I gained priceless skills and discipline, and I am now a very sucessful developer. I've worked hard as hell, and I never asked for a handout, not once, and now my traditional family structure and I are prosperous. I'm able to send my children to private school, vacation regularly, my old lady even gets to stay home and watch soaps all day (If she watches the View Di-Vorce! haha). Sure it took hard work but I made it. Im interested to find out the leftist socialist view on why I pay taxes out the ass for handouts. I worked for this, now I have to give some away? Unfair!
You do realise that in a society we envisage, everyone will be be given what they need. We won't have children starving whilst some rich guy eats his way through a week's worth of food in one sitting.

Comrade J

31st March 2007, 23:56

But honestly, as a hard-working american, I've gone from the son of a single-mom waitress, who could give me and my brothers very very little, through the military, in which I gained priceless skills and discipline, and I am now a very sucessful developer. I've worked hard as hell, and I never asked for a handout, not once, and now my traditional family structure and I are prosperous. I'm able to send my children to private school, vacation regularly, my old lady even gets to stay home and watch soaps all day (If she watches the View Di-Vorce! haha). Sure it took hard work but I made it.

Beautiful story. If I wasn't a heartless bastard, I might even shed a tear.

Im interested to find out the leftist socialist view on why I pay taxes out the ass for handouts. I worked for this, now I have to give some away? Unfair!

Sounds like you'd be better on a liberal forum. Communism isn't about welfare states.

Fawkes

31st March 2007, 23:56

Sgt.
3rd Brigade Combat Team
Iraq
I hope you get shot.

This website is for discussion amongst leftists. There are plenty of forums on the internet where you can debate politics with people with varying political views.

RedAnarchist

31st March 2007, 23:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:56 pm

Sgt.
3rd Brigade Combat Team
Iraq
I hope you get shot.

This website is for discussion amongst leftists. There are plenty of forums on the internet where you can debate politics with people with varying political views.
Sadly, he is retired, but his brother isn't.

AmericaFirst

31st March 2007, 23:59

Aw, come now, I'm trying to have a civil discussion, there's no need to wish death on my family. Honestly, if I came off harshly its because I was a bit miffed I couldn't post in some threads I would have liked to. There is no need for that.

Sadena Meti

31st March 2007, 23:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:42 pm

But then again, what would I expect from lefties?
I have no idea. Given that you're probably an ill-educated hick I would hazard that you would expect us to kill everyone and build attractive displays with their skulls?
Wait, are you saying I shouldn't be doing that?

Damn, ah well, time for spring cleaning.

Jazzratt

1st April 2007, 00:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:52 pm
But honestly, as a hard-working american, I've gone from the son of a single-mom waitress, who could give me and my brothers very very little, through the military, in which I gained priceless skills and discipline, and I am now a very sucessful developer. I've worked hard as hell, and I never asked for a handout, not once, and now my traditional family structure and I are prosperous. I'm able to send my children to private school, vacation regularly, my old lady even gets to stay home and watch soaps all day (If she watches the View Di-Vorce! haha). Sure it took hard work but I made it.
Well done. What do you want, a prize?

Im interested to find out the leftist socialist view on why I pay taxes out the ass for handouts. I worked for this, now I have to give some away? Unfair! Not really. See the problem is that you are living in an inefficient system which is completely unable to distribute its abundance. As such for this society to support itself whilst minimizing starvation deaths and so on it has to get the means from somewhere and as it is reliant on a price system it requires money - taken in the form of taxation. What I'd recommend you do, so as not to have to pay these taxes is use all those "skills" you got from the military and lead a revolution in order to secure a left-libertarian society based on a technocratic economy.

Fawkes

1st April 2007, 00:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:59 pm
Aw, come now, I'm trying to have a civil discussion, there's no need to wish death on my family. Honestly, if I came off harshly its because I was a bit miffed I couldn't post in some threads I would have liked to. There is no need for that.
I never wished death upon your family, just you.

AmericaFirst

1st April 2007, 00:04

TAKN, at least seems up for discussion. If everyone is given what they're needed then where is the incentive for innovation? If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others? If you look at the first 2 million years of human existence we lived in a largely communal, socialistic type enviroment. In which we made zero progress. But in a mere 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution and "locking up the food" (for those who have read My Ishmael) we have advanced far, far, far beyond where we were. Why is it that?

RedAnarchist

1st April 2007, 00:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 10:59 pm
Aw, come now, I'm trying to have a civil discussion, there's no need to wish death on my family. Honestly, if I came off harshly its because I was a bit miffed I couldn't post in some threads I would have liked to. There is no need for that.
I'm going to ask you a question, AmericaFirst, and I would like you to be honest.

You say you are the son of an hard-working single mum, right? A working-class family, ok?

Did you decied to join the army without any coercion from the army itself? Same goes for your brother, did he?

RedAnarchist

1st April 2007, 00:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:04 pm
TAKN, at least seems up for discussion. If everyone is given what they're needed then where is the incentive for innovation? If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others? If you look at the first 2 million years of human existence we lived in a largely communal, socialistic type enviroment. In which we made zero progress. But in a mere 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution and "locking up the food" (for those who have read My Ishmael) we have advanced far, far, far beyond where we were. Why is it that?
The incentive is that people won't need to work five days a wekk just to line the pockets of their bosses. They will have far more time for themselves.

Also money won't exist, so noone will be paid.

Jazzratt

1st April 2007, 00:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:04 pm
TAKN, at least seems up for discussion. If everyone is given what they're needed then where is the incentive for innovation?
Innovation makes life easier, and allows a greater abundance to be created.

If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others? Because they enjoy the work more.
If you look at the first 2 million years of human existence we lived in a largely communal, socialistic type enviroment. In which we made zero progress. But in a mere 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution and "locking up the food" (for those who have read My Ishmael) we have advanced far, far, far beyond where we were. Why is it that? If we didn't advance through primitive communism how the fuck did we advance out of primitive communism?

AmericaFirst

1st April 2007, 00:14

So you're saying it would be a "harder you work, the more free time you get" sort of incentive program? I'll admit I'm intrigued if thats the case. But no one would be able to rise above the masses? As a person who's elevated my social class I sort of find that restrictive. Now when you say everyone gets what they need, would there be luxury items? Or in the absence of major corporations have such products become non-existant? I'm sorta attached to my big screen so that might cause some trouble.

RedAnarchist

1st April 2007, 00:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:14 pm
So you're saying it would be a "harder you work, the more free time you get" sort of incentive program? I'll admit I'm intrigued if thats the case. But no one would be able to rise above the masses? As a person who's elevated my social class I sort of find that restrictive. Now when you say everyone gets what they need, would there be luxury items? Or in the absence of major corporations have such products become non-existant? I'm sorta attached to my big screen so that might cause some trouble.
Your big screen television is personal property, like your toothbrush or your clothes. It isn't private property. That is stuff like land. You will be allowed personal property, you know.

apathy maybe

1st April 2007, 00:18

Lets play the dinosaur game! Imagine a picture of a dinosaur here.

Now to address the thread starter. If you want to debate, you are welcome to do so. In this forum. You can start any thread you like (with in the guidelines).

If you have an actual argument against anything we have to say, then say it!

But it seems to me, that you came here to simply whinge about board policy. Not a good way to make friends. But definitely a way to get reaction, which is why I played the dinosaur game above.

So, why don't you think communism could work? (Read through the learning forum to find out what we generally mean by the term first. Searching through this forum could also bring to light other similar arguments).

AmericaFirst

1st April 2007, 00:18

In your ideal system then would jobs based simply on what wants to do? What of the lazy? I know many a person who really wouldn't be constructive if it didn't pay the bills.

bloody_capitalist_sham

1st April 2007, 00:19

If everyone is given what they're needed then where is the incentive for innovation?

Almost all of modern histories technological development comes from state subsidised companies.

The internet, created by the military is a recent and famous example.

If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others?

If each worker actually had a say in running the workplace democratically, and they knew they would benefit to the full value that their labour produces, then they would likely work hard.

minimum wage is not an incentive.

If you look at the first 2 million years of human existence we lived in a largely communal, socialistic type environment. In which we made zero progress.

We actually call that stage primitive communism. And yes humans did make zero progress.

really though, it was because the methods of survival were very in effeicent. hunting and gathering. So they were forced to work together so they all at least got some food.

But in a mere 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution and "locking up the food" (for those who have read My Ishmael) we have advanced far, far, far beyond where we were. Why is it that?

The agricultural revolution brought about ownership of land, used for farming etc. which created the first class society.

And as those with the land needed to defend it, all the land owners worked together and formed a state.

I think you would find reading a short pamphlet on historical materialism a real incite. you never know, you might think its a good interpretation of history.

bloody_capitalist_sham

1st April 2007, 00:24

In your ideal system then would jobs based simply on what wants to do? What of the lazy? I know many a person who really wouldn't be constructive if it didn't pay the bills.

You have to work in socialism. If you dont why should other people provide for you?

Socialism is where jobs are balanced, so you can choose to do stuff you want to do, and a fair amount of jobs that just need to be done for society to function.

But, you wont be forced into a job you hate, and it would be less hours than capitalist society. so, working, in nature would be different than capitalist society.

AmericaFirst

1st April 2007, 00:30

Oh this is refreshing, I'm not discussing with the usual democratic rabble, but with more, erm, radical views. Interesting to say the least. So would your revolutionary society have place for religion? If so, would that be state controlled? Would the rights to the people be rights granted by the state, or natural rights, that supercede any government? For that matter, I've heard many people claim true communism is when there no longer is a need for a state, is this applicable to you? I'm all ears if you please can be civil.

RedAnarchist

1st April 2007, 00:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:30 pm
Oh this is refreshing, I'm not discussing with the usual democratic rabble, but with more, erm, radical views. Interesting to say the least. So would your revolutionary society have place for religion? If so, would that be state controlled? Would the rights to the people be rights granted by the state, or natural rights, that supercede any government? For that matter, I've heard many people claim true communism is when there no longer is a need for a state, is this applicable to you? I'm all ears if you please can be civil.
A lot of people here don't believe in a post-revolutionary state, although we do have Marxists who do belive in such a state.

As for religion, there would be no organised religion (Personally, I'm not too certain what this means, although I think it means established churches and people like the Pope). Religion will probably be around for a bit, but would be very small and would soon die out. You have to remember that no successful revolution can occur unless the people are class concious - and class conciousness does not include religion.

bloody_capitalist_sham

1st April 2007, 00:45

religion is individual choice. The state is neutral. But protects the minority religions from the larger religions.

Like in Russia in 1917, the orthodox monks rebelled against the leader monks (whatever they are called) and ran the church communally.

The muslims in eastern russia were also allowed to be tried by either the soviet judical system or a "secularised islamic court" kinda thing.

This is of course until Stalin, and the Bolsheviks had been purged.

Would the rights to the people be rights granted by the state, or natural rights, that supercede any government?

Rights would be what we have now, plus democratic control over the economy, as opposed to private control over the economy.

every government would be immediately recallable.

For that matter, I've heard many people claim true communism is when there no longer is a need for a state, is this applicable to you?

Well if we mean the state as being the military, police and such then yes. Marxists and anarchists differ on what communism would be like. It is stateless though, but it something that cannot be narrowed down, because it would be like the founding fathers trying to guess what it would be like in 2007. Impossible on the specifics.

Some terminology we use is: Communism = stateless classless society.
Socialism = some kind of federation of workers state
workers state = some kind of democratically run nationalised economy, with no boarders within a federation of workers states.

inquisitive_socialist

1st April 2007, 00:46

a generally accepted thought, or so i see it, is that religion tends to hold back the people and work as a veil to hide the crappiness of the conditions we're in. I.E, its ok that you suffer and work for shit on earth because you'll be rewarded all the more in the afterlife. most people i know who are any more left than a liberal democrat see religion as a crutch, and personally i think its just bait to keep to happy with less.

ichneumon

1st April 2007, 01:49

Look, consider: a board for and by homosexuals, talking about gay things. does this board allow every thread to be spammed by God Hates Fags morons? no. would a board for and about christians let every thread by spammed by atheists? no. personally, i think this board takes the restriction bit way too far, but the principle behind it is sound. we are perfectly willing to make a space to talk to any and everyone (barring nazis) - that is enough to satisfy "freedom of speech".

if you wish to debate, start a thread.

So would your revolutionary society have place for religion? If so, would that be state controlled?

you're living in my revolutionary society, and i'm religious - though nothing you would consider "normal". state controlled religion is anathema. personally, i'd see all churches accept a covenant that includes nonviolence and coexistence with other religions, or else be unwelcome and not treated as churches - this would go far in resolving problems with fundamentalists and radicals. your suggestions?

Kwisatz Haderach

1st April 2007, 02:05

First of all, I wish to respond to the original post:

Members of the Revolutionary Left (RevLeft) are outnumbered on the internet in general. If we allowed anyone to post on any of our boards, it is likely that we would get a range of political views similar to the political mainstream. In other words, non-RevLeft opinion would drown RevLeft opinion by sheer force of numbers. We would be unable to talk among ourselves. And the whole reason for the existence of this forum is so that RevLeft people can talk with each other.

Haha I still visit conservative forums, but they all agree with me, and where's the fun in that? I'm just saying if President Bush said from now on a certain ideology was only allowed to be expressed in one small corner of the media, I'm sure you'd all be quite afronted.
Yes, but there is a difference between restricting speech in an entire country and restricting speech on one set of forums. There should be conservative newspapers, liberal newspapers, socialist newspapers and so on, but it is unreasonable to request a socialist newspaper to publish conservative opinion.

But honestly, as a hard-working american, I've gone from the son of a single-mom waitress, who could give me and my brothers very very little, through the military, in which I gained priceless skills and discipline, and I am now a very sucessful developer. I've worked hard as hell, and I never asked for a handout, not once, and now my traditional family structure and I are prosperous. I'm able to send my children to private school, vacation regularly, my old lady even gets to stay home and watch soaps all day (If she watches the View Di-Vorce! haha). Sure it took hard work but I made it. Im interested to find out the leftist socialist view on why I pay taxes out the ass for handouts. I worked for this, now I have to give some away? Unfair!
You never asked for a handout? The military is a tax-funded institution. Everything you got from the military was technically a "handout". But, as someone else pointed out, we are not liberals. We do not support welfare, we support the universal right to work.

TAKN, at least seems up for discussion. If everyone is given what they're needed then where is the incentive for innovation? If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others?
Why is that a problem? After all, what does it mean to be lazy? It means you want to work less and have more free time. If it is true that the majority of people are lazy - in other words, if it is true that the majority of people would like to work less and have more free time - why should we force them to work? Why should we give people incentives to do something they don't want to do? Letting them have more free time will make them happier. Yes, of course it will also slow down economic development, but if people are lazy that means that people want economic development to be slower (and have more free time as a trade-off).

There is a trade-off between wealth and leisure. Capitalists seem to operate under the assumption that we must get people to work as hard as possible in order to produce as much wealth as possible. We want to let them make their own choice between wealth and leisure.

If you look at the first 2 million years of human existence we lived in a largely communal, socialistic type enviroment. In which we made zero progress. But in a mere 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution and "locking up the food" (for those who have read My Ishmael) we have advanced far, far, far beyond where we were. Why is it that?
Are people, on the average, happier today than they were 10,000 years ago? I have no idea. I would guess the answer is "yes, but not by much". If the ultimate purpose of innovation and economic development is human happiness (which I believe it is), then the overwhelming majority of development over the past 10,000 years was wasteful - we put effort into it but got no happiness back.

Now don't get me wrong, I would never advocate a "return to the land", or any of that hippie crap. I think technology is wonderful. But not so wonderful as to trump everything else. If there was a way to get from hunting and gathering to where we are today without wars, genocide, poverty, exploitation and all the other nasty effects of human civilization, but this way took 100,000 years instead of 10,000, I would say this was the better way.

So you're saying it would be a "harder you work, the more free time you get" sort of incentive program? I'll admit I'm intrigued if thats the case. But no one would be able to rise above the masses? As a person who's elevated my social class I sort of find that restrictive.
The reason people want to get rich is because they look up to those who are already rich. If there were no rich people - if you never even heard of the concept of being "rich" - then you would be far less likely to want to get rich.

Kwisatz Haderach

1st April 2007, 02:41

Oh this is refreshing, I'm not discussing with the usual democratic rabble, but with more, erm, radical views. Interesting to say the least. So would your revolutionary society have place for religion? If so, would that be state controlled?
As a Christian communist, I believe that capitalism - with its emphasis on consumerism, acquisition of wealth and happiness through money - is the cause of the decline in religion that has taken place over the last 200 years. I believe capitalism is inherently opposed to and currently undermining both religion and morality in general. Socialism and communism, on the other hand, will promote a kind of behavior and morality that is much more compatible with [Christian] religion, so I expect a religious revival under socialism.

Most RevLeft people, however, tend to be atheists. The majority opinion seems to be that religion only exists as a way of coping with poverty and suffering, and that once we get rid of poverty and suffering religion will naturally fade away by itself. I think that people who believe this are dead wrong, of course, but I see no problem with their beliefs as long as they don't interfere with the free practice of religion.

Here's an interesting fact: After 45 years of non-capitalism, Eastern Europe was (and is) far more religious than its capitalist counterpart, Western Europe, despite the fact that eastern governments actively tried to discourage religion. Not only did Stalinist governments fail to suppress religion, but they even failed to match the results achieved by capitalism in the West. Capitalism is better than active government persecution at reducing religious belief. That's impressive.

Would the rights to the people be rights granted by the state, or natural rights, that supercede any government?
Irrelevant. Suppose you have rights that are "natural" - and therefore theoretically supercede government authority - but your government refuses to grant them to you. How is that situation different than if your rights were not natural and your government refused to grant them to you?

Whether rights are natural makes no difference at all. Governments have the power to grant them or suppress them anyway.

For that matter, I've heard many people claim true communism is when there no longer is a need for a state, is this applicable to you?
I'm not sure... You see, I've recently realized that I can't find any good definition for the concept of a "state". What IS the state, anyway? Most definitions given by political science are too narrow or too broad. Take the idea that the state is an "organization with a monopoly over the use of force", for example. Does that mean that when there is a rebellion (and the state no longer has a monopoly over force), the state stops being a state?

Basically, I no longer think there is any coherent definition that you can find for the concept of "the state". Instead of saying that communism requires the abolition of the state, I prefer to say that communism requires all people to have equal political power (in other words, some kind of direct democracy).

RevMARKSman

1st April 2007, 02:51

Originally posted by rev-stoic+March 31, 2007 05:59 pm--> (rev-stoic @ March 31, 2007 05:59 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 05:42 pm

But then again, what would I expect from lefties?
I have no idea. Given that you're probably an ill-educated hick I would hazard that you would expect us to kill everyone and build attractive displays with their skulls?
Wait, are you saying I shouldn't be doing that?

Damn, ah well, time for spring cleaning. [/b]
Oh, shit...
<looks in closet>

So would your revolutionary society have place for religion?

Nope. The only way a successful revolution will happen is if we get rid of that crap altogether.

Would the rights to the people be rights granted by the state, or natural rights, that supercede any government?

What do you mean? No government, plus "rights" are a concept made up by humans. We can choose which "rights" we want to respect and when-- i.e. the right of a slave to be free vs. the right of the slave owner to own slaves.

For that matter, I've heard many people claim true communism is when there no longer is a need for a state, is this applicable to you?

No state.

If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others?

No money, just social stigma AND if your collective produces shitty products, the collectives that supply you with materials will probably cut you off.

People will work just because it's fucking boring to sit on your ass all day, and undoubtedly most of them will have spark of interest in some area or another.

If you look at the first 2 million years of human existence we lived in a largely communal, socialistic type enviroment. In which we made zero progress.

Not enough people.

More people -> more communication -> technology -> stronger "alpha males" use technology to gain power over the rest of the clan -> new system of production : barbarism, the first stage of class society.

...And oh yeah, listen to Jazzratt because I have things to do in the near future and won't be reading this thread continually.

ComradeRed

1st April 2007, 02:59

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 31, 2007 05:41 pm

Oh this is refreshing, I'm not discussing with the usual democratic rabble, but with more, erm, radical views. Interesting to say the least. So would your revolutionary society have place for religion? If so, would that be state controlled?
As a Christian communist, I believe that capitalism - with its emphasis on consumerism, acquisition of wealth and happiness through money - is the cause of the decline in religion that has taken place over the last 200 years.
You must not be paying attention, people are naively believing in superstitious psychobabble more than ever...that's why 48% of Americans don't believe in evolution! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I believe capitalism is inherently opposed to and currently undermining both religion and morality in general. Yeah, that's perhaps the only thing I like about it.

But please note that a "moral" argument is worse than an illogical argument as you can justify ANYTHING with morality. It's been done with slavery, Nazism, genocides, capitalism, and superstitious nonsense.

Socialism and communism, on the other hand, will promote a kind of behavior and morality that is much more compatible with [Christian] religion, so I expect a religious revival under socialism. Well, despite this not having any material basis, there is no reasoning behind it either.

Here's an interesting fact: After 45 years of non-capitalism, Eastern Europe was (and is) far more religious than its capitalist counterpart, Western Europe, despite the fact that eastern governments actively tried to discourage religion. Not only did Stalinist governments fail to suppress religion, but they even failed to match the results achieved by capitalism in the West. Capitalism is better than active government persecution at reducing religious belief. That's impressive. How do you explain the fact that Germany is largely secular because of the "secularization" under Bismarck?

It's too early to say definitively the consequences of this "repression" of superstition. In the short run too Bismarck "repression" caused an increase in the number of god suckers, but in the long run the number declined.

Kwisatz Haderach

1st April 2007, 03:26

Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed)You must not be paying attention, people are naively believing in superstitious psychobabble more than ever...that's why 48% of Americans don't believe in evolution! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.[/b]
I see evidence that many Americans are religious, but I see no evidence that more Americans are religious now than in the past. Your figure of 48%, by itself, does not support your "more than ever" claim. Is this 48% more or less than the number of people who did not believe in evolution a few years ago? What are the long-term trends?

While America is still very religious today, it is far less religious than in the past. Compare the present with the 1950s, for example.

ComradeRed
But please note that a "moral" argument is worse than an illogical argument as you can justify ANYTHING with morality. It's been done with slavery, Nazism, genocides, capitalism, and superstitious nonsense.
Any argument is based on morality. To argue against capitalism, you must believe that capitalism is bad in some way. To argue for communism, you must believe that communism is good in some way.

So, in a sense, you are right - any argument either for or against something must be based on a conception of right and wrong. This is just as true for you as it is for your opponents. The difference is that different philosophies and ideologies are based on different views of what is good and what is bad.

RNK

1st April 2007, 04:36

So would your revolutionary society have place for religion?

So long as religion doesn't interfere with people's freedoms.

If so, would that be state controlled?

No.

Would the rights to the people be rights granted by the state, or natural rights, that supercede any government?

At first, by the state, during the "socialist transitional" period. This is where a more-or-less centralized authority (government) is needed to protect the people. Once the old traditions of the rich exploiting the poor are abolished, the state is dissolved and I guess "natural rights" take over. However you want to call it.

For that matter, I've heard many people claim true communism is when there no longer is a need for a state, is this applicable to you?

Yes.

bezdomni

1st April 2007, 05:49

People are motivated to do what they want to do, not what they have to do.

It is hard to be an innovator when you are doing the same tedious work for 10 hours a day.

freakazoid

1st April 2007, 06:12

At first it seemed like you was just coming here to troll, it is nice to see you actually asking questions, :D

On the religion part, I think that it should be aloud, seeing as I am a Christian Anarchist :D. We don't interfere with others freedoms you don't interfere with ours.

RGacky3

1st April 2007, 06:23

It would be kind of pointless to have a leftist disscussion forum if the whole time on all the other forums we'd be having to argue with Capitalists, we probably would'nt get much leftist disscussion done, so here you have your own little part of the site to argue with us and show us how wrong we are. But I don't see why you'd want to post discussions say in the practice section, talking to us about how to overthrow Capitalism, and I doubt you'd want to discuss Anarchist or Marxist theories, you'd pretty much just be trying to discredit us, which is fine, but do it here, don't disrupt our own discussions.

ComradeRed

1st April 2007, 07:18

Originally posted by Edric O+March 31, 2007 06:26 pm--> (Edric O @ March 31, 2007 06:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
You must not be paying attention, people are naively believing in superstitious psychobabble more than ever...that's why 48% of Americans don't believe in evolution! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I see evidence that many Americans are religious, but I see no evidence that more Americans are religious now than in the past. Your figure of 48%, by itself, does not support your "more than ever" claim. Is this 48% more or less than the number of people who did not believe in evolution a few years ago? What are the long-term trends?

While America is still very religious today, it is far less religious than in the past. Compare the present with the 1950s, for example. [/b]
Yes, it's a step forward!

That's not a problem! Why should people bother with that superstitious nonsense when this nonsense disputes empirically supported theories?

One of the good things that capitalism has done is that it has challenged the religious beliefs of feudalism with science. Marx remarks that somewhere, and speaking as a physicist he was right.

Out of curiousity, how do you reconcile materialism and your idealism?

ComradeRed
But please note that a "moral" argument is worse than an illogical argument as you can justify ANYTHING with morality. It's been done with slavery, Nazism, genocides, capitalism, and superstitious nonsense.
Any argument is based on morality. To argue against capitalism, you must believe that capitalism is bad in some way. To argue for communism, you must believe that communism is good in some way.

So, in a sense, you are right - any argument either for or against something must be based on a conception of right and wrong. This is just as true for you as it is for your opponents. The difference is that different philosophies and ideologies are based on different views of what is good and what is bad. Then you clearly do not understand the arguments against capitalism.

Arguing capitalism is ineffecient is not a moral argument as your definition would imply.

Arguing that people should be using a more effecient system that hurts no one, if put in such a way, could be twisted into an ethical argument.

But what you are doing is perverting the argument into a degenerate ethical one...one which is non-unique (i.e. can be used for any system).

That is however not my criticism, nor is it Marx's or any (real) Marxists' criticisms. Perhaps you should brush up some more on your radical leftists before you go about saying "Anti-capitalism is intrinsically moralistic".

Jazzratt

1st April 2007, 16:05

On the question of religion, no it will not be "banned" we do not ban delusions. Treatment and therapy will be made available to any and all religious people.

bezdomni

1st April 2007, 17:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 05:12 am
At first it seemed like you was just coming here to troll, it is nice to see you actually asking questions, :D

On the religion part, I think that it should be aloud, seeing as I am a Christian Anarchist :D. We don't interfere with others freedoms you don't interfere with ours.
Your freedom is inextricably linked with the freedom of all people. The "me vs. everybody else" mentality is a bourgeois tendency.

Just as the freedom of all people is inextricably linked with the death of religion. Religion is also a bourgeois tendency.

freakazoid

1st April 2007, 20:34

On the question of religion, no it will not be "banned" we do not ban delusions. Treatment and therapy will be made available to any and all religious people.

Your always are good for a witty remark, :P

Kwisatz Haderach

1st April 2007, 21:04

Originally posted by ComradeRed+--> (ComradeRed)Yes, it's a step forward!

That's not a problem! Why should people bother with that superstitious nonsense when this nonsense disputes empirically supported theories?[/b]
Creationism is bad, yes. Religion, however, is not.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Out of curiousity, how do you reconcile materialism and your idealism?
I believe in a mostly non-interventionist God. Thus, although supernatural phenomena exist, they do not normally interfere with the material processes that drive the universe. Materialism is not entirely accurate, but it is a good approximation of the world most of the time. I suppose you could say I view materialism the same way a physicist views Newtonian physics. Under everyday conditions here on Earth, Newtonian physics is a good approximation of the universe.

ComradeRed
Arguing capitalism is ineffecient is not a moral argument as your definition would imply.

Arguing that people should be using a more effecient system that hurts no one, if put in such a way, could be twisted into an ethical argument.

But what you are doing is perverting the argument into a degenerate ethical one...one which is non-unique (i.e. can be used for any system).

That is however not my criticism, nor is it Marx's or any (real) Marxists' criticisms. Perhaps you should brush up some more on your radical leftists before you go about saying "Anti-capitalism is intrinsically moralistic".
Oh, I know Marx's position on morality very well, and I can easily say that he was flat out wrong - he did not seem to notice the moral judgement inherent in his own arguments. Even brilliant minds sometimes slip up.

Arguing that we should abolish capitalism because it hurts or exploits people is based on the inherent moral judgement that human suffering is bad and human happiness is good.

Arguing that we should abolish capitalism because it is inefficient is based on the moral judgement that inefficiency is bad.

Even the argument that the demise of capitalism is inevitable and we should only try to speed it up is based on the moral judgement that the inevitable course of history is good.

Capitalists hold different moral views. Most of them believe that human suffering is not bad or at least not always bad. Reactionaries believe that the course of history is not good.

freakazoid

1st April 2007, 21:08

Creationism is bad,

:(

And since we are on the topic of morality, I have a book suggestion, :D Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis Bet you guys didn't see that one coming, :P Here is a link to a free etext, http://www.lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

Jazzratt

1st April 2007, 21:15

Jazzratt

1st April 2007, 21:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:08 pm

Creationism is bad,

:(
Oh fuck off, you must be the only "leftist" in the world that doesn't recognise that creationism is bad science.

Kwisatz Haderach

1st April 2007, 22:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:15 pm
Edric: if anti-capitalism is inherently moralistic how do you explain the current trend in condemning capitalism as grossly inefficient? That is a simple economic criticism which holds a lot of weight in a lot of arguments. Naturally there is a moral dimension to the anti-capitalist movement but this neither defines it, nor is it considered the strongest argument.

Most systems will have their various proponents who defend it for various reasons, most capitalists for example use the moralistic idea of "economic freedom" as their defence. The only way of seeing the system of highest merit is, and always will be, based in studying the logical arguments. Morals are fine in rhetoric but they are not a good reason for supporting a system.
The point is that you need some conception of what is "good" and what is "bad" in order to make any recommendation for changing society.

If you are going to criticize capitalism for inefficiency, you still need to explain why inefficiency is bad. All logical arguments for and against a certain social structure are based on some kind of morality. All normative economics has a moral underpinning.

Frankly, it is a fatal mistake to surrender the moral high ground under the illusion that it doesn't matter. In 2004, half of all American voters voted against their material self-interest in the name of "moral values". If socialists put more effort into convincing people that socialism is the only moral economic system, we would gain a lot more support.

ComradeRed

1st April 2007, 22:14

Originally posted by Edric O+April 01, 2007 12:04 pm--> (Edric O @ April 01, 2007 12:04 pm)
Creationism is bad, yes. Religion, however, is not.
[/b] Yes religion is only responsible for the death of countless people, genocides, ownership of women. It's not "bad" in the least :lol:

ComradeRed
Out of curiousity, how do you reconcile materialism and your idealism?
I believe in a mostly non-interventionist God. Thus, although supernatural phenomena exist, they do not normally interfere with the material processes that drive the universe. Materialism is not entirely accurate, but it is a good approximation of the world most of the time. I suppose you could say I view materialism the same way a physicist views Newtonian physics. Under everyday conditions here on Earth, Newtonian physics is a good approximation of the universe.
So in other words you believe Materialism to be wrong? :lol: Without any sound reasoning to it too, just blind faith.

There's one born every minute.

You don't reconcile the contradiction. Instead you're a walking contradiction.

Oh, I know Marx's position on morality very well, and I can easily say that he was flat out wrong - he did not seem to notice the moral judgement inherent in his own arguments. Even brilliant minds sometimes slip up. Well by all means don't give us any reasoning as to why he was wrong, just assert it. :rolleyes:

Arguing that we should abolish capitalism because it hurts or exploits people is based on the inherent moral judgement that human suffering is bad and human happiness is good.

Arguing that we should abolish capitalism because it is inefficient is based on the moral judgement that inefficiency is bad.

Even the argument that the demise of capitalism is inevitable and we should only try to speed it up is based on the moral judgement that the inevitable course of history is good.

Capitalists hold different moral views. Most of them believe that human suffering is not bad or at least not always bad. Reactionaries believe that the course of history is not good. Well I'm glad that you have assessed Marx incorrectly.

You're trying, as the bourgeois economists have, to portray Marxism as a "normative" social scientist. That's a blatant distortion of Marx's works.

But hey, if you think you materialism is wrong without any sound reasoning to it, I fail to see your distortion of Marx as a huge surprise to anyone.

Kwisatz Haderach

1st April 2007, 22:29

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 01, 2007 11:14 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 01, 2007 11:14 pm) Yes religion is only responsible for the death of countless people, genocides, ownership of women. It's not "bad" in the least :lol: [/b]
In order to say that religion is "bad", you first need to accept that there is such a thing as good and evil. Without morality, nothing is evil, so religion cannot be evil either.

Now do you see how you cannot escape moral arguments?

Do you believe that death is bad? Do you believe that genocide is bad? Do you believe that ownership of women is bad? Congratulations - you have morals!

Originally posted by [email protected]

I believe in a mostly non-interventionist God. Thus, although supernatural phenomena exist, they do not normally interfere with the material processes that drive the universe. Materialism is not entirely accurate, but it is a good approximation of the world most of the time. I suppose you could say I view materialism the same way a physicist views Newtonian physics. Under everyday conditions here on Earth, Newtonian physics is a good approximation of the universe.
So in other words you believe Materialism to be wrong? :lol: Without any sound reasoning to it too, just blind faith.
No, not faith, just a logical argument: If materialism is true, there is no such thing as objective good and evil. If there is no such thing as objective good and evil, there is no rational basis on which to make decisions between all the possible actions I may undertake. Jumping off a tall building is neither better nor worse than going on a killing spree or eating lunch. There is no objective purpose of life. I may create my own purpose, of course, but any such purpose would be arbitrary. Should I dedicate my life to communist revolution, accumulation of wealth or eating babies? Without objective good and evil, how am I supposed to choose between them?

In order to live a rational life, I require a purpose. In order to have a non-arbitrary purpose in life, I require the existence of objective good and evil. In order for objective good and evil to exist, the supernatural must exist.

So I must believe in the supernatural in order to live a rational life.

ComradeRed
Well by all means don't give us any reasoning as to why he was wrong, just assert it. :rolleyes:
I just explained how you cannot avoid morality in your arguments.

ComradeRed

1st April 2007, 22:48

Originally posted by Edric O+April 01, 2007 01:29 pm--> (Edric O @ April 01, 2007 01:29 pm)
Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 01, 2007 11:14 pm--> (ComradeRed @ April 01, 2007 11:14 pm) Yes religion is only responsible for the death of countless people, genocides, ownership of women. It's not "bad" in the least :lol: [/b]
In order to say that religion is "bad", you first need to accept that there is such a thing as good and evil. Without morality, nothing is evil, so religion cannot be evil either.

Now do you see how you cannot escape moral arguments?[/b]
No I like your reasoning, owning women is not wrong. It's fully justified.

Do you believe that death is bad? Do you believe that genocide is bad? Do you believe that ownership of women is bad? Congratulations - you have morals! Do I believe that it's unjustified actions? Yeah; do I believe they are "evil"? No.

Congratulations: you can't think logically! If you don't believe me, read the last point in this post.

[email protected]

I believe in a mostly non-interventionist God. Thus, although supernatural phenomena exist, they do not normally interfere with the material processes that drive the universe. Materialism is not entirely accurate, but it is a good approximation of the world most of the time. I suppose you could say I view materialism the same way a physicist views Newtonian physics. Under everyday conditions here on Earth, Newtonian physics is a good approximation of the universe.
So in other words you believe Materialism to be wrong? :lol: Without any sound reasoning to it too, just blind faith.
No, not faith, just a logical argument: If materialism is true, there is no such thing as objective good and evil. If there is no such thing as objective good and evil, there is no rational basis on which to make decisions between all the possible actions I may undertake. Jumping off a tall building is neither better nor worse than going on a killing spree or eating lunch. There is no objective purpose of life. I may create my own purpose, of course, but any such purpose would be arbitrary. Should I dedicate my life to communist revolution, accumulation of wealth or eating babies? Without objective good and evil, how am I supposed to choose between them?Jesus you can't think logically can you? :o

Define "Objective Good" and "Objective Evil" as they are ambiguous terms you are throwing around.

Frankly, there is no "Objectively Good" decision and "Objectively Evil" decision! There are only decisions which are relatively better than others.

E.g. suppose it's "Objectively Good" to be honest, since it's in your ten commandments. When the Ghestapo officer comes to your door and asks "Are you hiding Jews in your basement?" You "ethics" would demand that you say "Yes, I am". That's an illogical move, but justified in your framework.

In order to live a rational life, I require a purpose. In order to have a non-arbitrary purpose in life, I require the existence of objective good and evil. In order for objective good and evil to exist, the supernatural must exist.

So I must believe in the supernatural in order to live a rational life. Well...

a) The supernatural is intriniscally irrational, which makes you a walking contradiction.

b) A "rational life" (whatever that means) does not require "purpose" defined extrinsic to that life, i.e. you make your own meaning of your own life.

ComradeRed
Well by all means don't give us any reasoning as to why he was wrong, just assert it. :rolleyes:
I just explained how you cannot avoid morality in your arguments. You twisted arguments to make them moral. You can do that with any argument that involves "That proposition is incorrect", it's nonunique here.

I could even use it to assert that mathematics is an "ethical" system using your "logic". Is it? No.

Your logic is just flawed.

Publius

1st April 2007, 23:09

Since I'm always so adept at supplying stuff like this, here's Dawkins, Hitch, and some other dude vs. some pro-religion folks on a debate over whether we'd be better off without religion.

We, of course, would: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_vid...icle1583399.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/audio_video/podcasts/article1583399.ece)

Publius

1st April 2007, 23:15

Edric: if anti-capitalism is inherently moralistic how do you explain the current trend in condemning capitalism as grossly inefficient? That is a simple economic criticism which holds a lot of weight in a lot of arguments. Naturally there is a moral dimension to the anti-capitalist movement but this neither defines it, nor is it considered the strongest argument.

Is your thinking really this shallow?

I actually doubt it is, I think you just are in a rush to oppose capitalism AND morality and so you come up with poor arguments.

But ponder this: gas chambers are more efficient than pogroms for kill Jews.

Are gas chambers, then, to be preferred? Of course not, because you have to look at what the efficiency is achieving. Let's assume communism is 'more efficient', and let's look at two aspects of that. Say communism is 'more efficient' at providing food for starving children. Well, that's a simple statement of fact, but it would take an idiot (or a Marxist, it seems) to say that there is no morality contained in that fact, no moral significance. Merely saying "I support it because it's more efficient" means nothing. It's it's more efficient at killing people, would you support it then? Of course not. You'd toss out that fallacious argument so fast it would make my head spin. All in some insane attempt to do something that doesn't even need to be done.

The answer isn't to get rid of morality, it's to build a better morality.

Most systems will have their various proponents who defend it for various reasons, most capitalists for example use the moralistic idea of "economic freedom" as their defence. The only way of seeing the system of highest merit is, and always will be, based in studying the logical arguments. Morals are fine in rhetoric but they are not a good reason for supporting a system.

What about a morality based on logic? This dichotomy is purely contrived. My morality is based on rationality and logic.

Publius

1st April 2007, 23:30

Since I think I can do better than he's doing, I'll take a crack. I'll only respond to what I actually have issue with. Materialism is, of course, true.

No I like your reasoning, owning women is not wrong. It's fully justified.

That doesn't follow logically from the premises.

Do I believe that it's unjustified actions? Yeah; do I believe they are "evil"? No.

Unjustified? UNJUSTified? Noticing anything here?

You believe it is unjust, you just don't believe it's evil... You might want to rethink that terminology.

No, not faith, just a logical argument: If materialism is true, there is no such thing as objective good and evil.

Not necessarily.

If there is no such thing as objective good and evil, there is no rational basis on which to make decisions between all the possible actions I may undertake.

This doesn't follow logically from the premise.

To state it correct, because there is no objective morality there is no basis on which to form objective moral decisions, but if we were to devise a subjective morality, we would have a perfectly fine basis on which to make subjective moral judgments.

Jumping off a tall building is neither better nor worse than going on a killing spree or eating lunch.

Objectively, no. Subjectively, according to the opinions of others, yes, yes it is.

But you're making a grave mistake (actually the same mistake christians make, obfuscating 'morality' with 'objective morality.'

All of that is wrong. Subjectively. To me. To others. To a lot of people. And in fact reasons can be devised, and are devised, to demonstrate this. I don't just conspire to make certain acts 'moral' and certain ones 'immoral', I base my morality on logical grounding, but proposing certain axioms, that logically apply. For example, it's an axiom of my morality that no human life is inherently worth more than any other. Now you could say this is an unprovable statement, but that would be absurd, because it's just my opinion. I accept it as an axiom, as I must, and as you must.

There is no objective purpose of life. I may create my own purpose, of course, but any such purpose would be arbitrary.

Or subjective, exactly.

Should I dedicate my life to communist revolution, accumulation of wealth or eating babies? Without objective good and evil, how am I supposed to choose between them?

Subjectively, using logic preferably.

I can, however, state how to NOT go about it: ignoring it. If you can't actually come up with a reason why communism is better than rape, than you're not doing very well.

If you honestly think there's no moral or ethical difference, in your system of though, between gang raping a child and giving food to poor people, than you might want to rethink some things. Just my advice.

Define "Objective Good" and "Objective Evil" as they are ambiguous terms you are throwing around.

Better yet, throw them out. They're useless, I believe.

Frankly, there is no "Objectively Good" decision and "Objectively Evil" decision! There are only decisions which are relatively better than others.

Exactly. Which is morality. 'Relatively better' could well be a mantra of subjectivist morality.

E.g. suppose it's "Objectively Good" to be honest, since it's in your ten commandments. When the Ghestapo officer comes to your door and asks "Are you hiding Jews in your basement?" You "ethics" would demand that you say "Yes, I am". That's an illogical move, but justified in your framework.

Very astute. And if you had morality, if you were a nihilist, you may as well, in that situation, pull out your dick and start masturbating, for it makes no difference.

Clearly you're doing some calculation about the affects your actions will have. That's morality.

And while I'm here, I'd just like to demonstrate the impossibility of objective morality: if there's an objective morality, it must always be true, by definition. If this morality is god-made, than god must be able to change it, that is, it isn't objective. If that morality isn't able to be changed by God, then God isn't God, he's simply another actor in a play he cannot direct, and thus the morality has nothing to do with God at all. Also, there is no functional difference between an objective morality that you do not know and no objective morality at all. Think about it.

I hope I've done a better job infusing some logic here and defining what 'moral' really means.

Jazzratt

1st April 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:15 pm

Edric: if anti-capitalism is inherently moralistic how do you explain the current trend in condemning capitalism as grossly inefficient? That is a simple economic criticism which holds a lot of weight in a lot of arguments. Naturally there is a moral dimension to the anti-capitalist movement but this neither defines it, nor is it considered the strongest argument.

Is your thinking really this shallow?

I actually doubt it is, I think you just are in a rush to oppose capitalism AND morality and so you come up with poor arguments.
I almost didn't post that argument, as I realised it would probably be ripped apart, and it did. This kind of post is always quite difficult to word so I'll go for something traditional: "It's a fair cop".

Most systems will have their various proponents who defend it for various reasons, most capitalists for example use the moralistic idea of "economic freedom" as their defence. The only way of seeing the system of highest merit is, and always will be, based in studying the logical arguments. Morals are fine in rhetoric but they are not a good reason for supporting a system.

What about a morality based on logic? This dichotomy is purely contrived. My morality is based on rationality and logic.
How do you decide what is rationally logical?
(That is how do you decide it, as opposed to "how does one decide it.)

ComradeRed

1st April 2007, 23:54

Publius, just a small criticism of your posting style, but for the love of Maxwell next time make sure you state who you're quoting. It makes it significantly easier to figure out what's going on.

Originally posted by Publius
What about a morality based on logic? This dichotomy is purely contrived. My morality is based on rationality and logic. I can't remember where I read it, but there was some logical positivist saying something along the lines that it is impossible to build an ethical system on logic alone. I'll have to dig it up again from the library, I think it was possibly A. J. Ayers in Language, Truth and Logic.

Unfortunately I'm rather pressed for time with my schedule, I have to give a presentation on relational quantum mechanics in a few days and I have to finish up this math :(

Publius

2nd April 2007, 00:24

Brother Rouge:

Publius, just a small criticism of your posting style, but for the love of Maxwell next time make sure you state who you're quoting. It makes it significantly easier to figure out what's going on.

I'm responding to the whole world, shouting at a wall, as it were.

I can't remember where I read it, but there was some logical positivist saying something along the lines that it is impossible to build an ethical system on logic alone. I'll have to dig it up again from the library, I think it was possibly A. J. Ayers in Language, Truth and Logic.

That'd be interesting to read, surely. I can't imagine that supposition stayed unchallenged long, though.

And even if it were true, it wouldn't obviate the necessity of 'doing the impossible' and making an attempt. Even if it were functionally impossible, it would still be a goal to be striven for, even if only rough approximations could be gotten.

Unfortunately I'm rather pressed for time with my schedule, I have to give a presentation on relational quantum mechanics in a few days and I have to finish up this math :(

Just remember, 2 and 2 make 4, everything else doesn't follow from that.

Kwisatz Haderach

2nd April 2007, 00:31

Publius

2nd April 2007, 01:29

Publius, the fundamental problem with subjective morality, in my view, is that if you take upon yourself the prerogative to create your own morality and purpose, such a morality and purpose are necessarily arbitrary. You have explained that you start your moral judgements and choices from certain axioms (such as "no human life is worth more than another"). That is all very well and good. But how did you choose the axioms? What would stop you (or me, or anyone else), from choosing different axioms, such as "the highest good is the annihilation of all human life"?

Nothing ever stops anyone from thinking anything. Nothing ever could. If you want to make that your axiom, you can. But what you need to realize is, even if there WERE an objective morality, people could still deny it, and they certainly often would.

But axioms can be debated. We can debate, using logic, but also using emotion and feeling and empathy, why certain moral ideas are 'better' than others. Not objectively, of course, but better according to certain guiding principals that most people share. Now, nothing's stopping anyone from rejecting any or all of this, except force, but that's always how it has to be. Morality can't be an ideal set of principals, it's got to be functional. What can you do make the world better, really.

People are always going to oppose this goal, for various reasons, the key is just to convince them otherwise, or stop them. You might now say that this is merely might-makes-right, but I don't think that's the case.

Might-makes-right would have no axioms other than that.

Once you grant different people the prerogative to invent their own moral systems, you have no universal standard by which to judge the actions of other people.

That's the point.

Once people are free to make their own decisions, they, and the human race as a whole, sink or swim on the idea of human empathy and logic overcoming human frailty and cruelty.

And as we've seen over the last few hundred years, people are getting better, morally, by nearly any standard you can devise. And all of this is due to subjective morality, people deciding, for themselves, if they'd rather live in a world where people are treated equally, or whether they would rather live in a world of tyranny. These are personal choices everyone must make.

Say we have two people, Jack and Jill. Jack decides that the highest good is raising white rabbits, and dedicates his life to the purpose of raising as many white rabbits as possible. Jill decides that the highest good is maximizing the pain felt by white rabbits, and dedicates her life to stealing Jack's rabbits and torturing them in various creative ways.

How do you reconcile these two people?

I don't reconcile them. I punish the sadist and show solidarity with the beneavalent one, because that's my morality. That's what I think is right.

If you believed in a system of objective morality, you would say that one is right and the other is wrong. But without objective morality, what are you going to do?

Accuse one of being right and one of being wrong.

Each of them is right according to their own private ethics.

Yes, and? What they think hardly matters. It's not my concern. I'm sure Hitler probably thought he was an alright guy too, but so what? My morality, and luckily most people's moralities, condemn genocide. So it doesn't matter what he thinks. He can have his opinion, but should he act on it, we claim every right to stop him.

More to the point, if you believe that morality is subjective, on what grounds can you say that it is wrong for another person to torture and kill you? It may be wrong for you, but not wrong for them.

No, it's wrong. Period. The only grounds I need, the only sanction I need is my own. I don't need someone's permission to make moral decisions and then live with their consequences. I'm not an infant, I'm not a child. I don't need to be told what do do by some patron-God. Do you? Are so iniquitous that you would rape and murder if some fatuous book didn't tell you otherwise? If all 'objective moralities' were discredited tommorow, would you suddenly subscribe to the idea that murder is great? Or would you, in fact, continue to live a generally 'moral' life, as I assume you do now? The question should answer itself. Do you enjoy other people suffering? I don't. It distresses me. It saddens. It hurts me, even. That's because I'm a human being with a functioning brain, who empathizes with other human beings. Most of us are this way. Sure, there are the occasional psychopaths, but we can lock them, luckily.

Objective morality is a just-so story used to explain what you already feel about morality. The reason you have a morality is that you have empathy, that you can realize "there but for fortune go I", and that you can draw equivalence between yourself and others. That's morality.

See, morality doesn't just come out of thin air, it gets passed down by society. Trial-and-error. People tried genocide for a while, and found it distasteful. Now genocide, while still extant, is at what I would call an all-time low. Racism is being curbed. This isn't due to objective morality, this is due to people deciding, on their own, that treating people different based on skin color is illogical. That it makes no sense. If races really did exist, if races really were different, then it would make perfect sense to treat races differently. But, the scientific fact is, race is a myth.

I could go on, but I think I've illustrated the point. Let me just end with this: try to understand how morality really functions, not how some people say it functions, or think it functions. If morality were objective, morality wouldn't change, would it? Yet look at how popular moral opinion has changed over the last 50 years. And also, refrain from simply saying "but that's not objective" when I spell out subjective morality. That's not a powerful critique.

AmericaFirst

2nd April 2007, 05:46

A hypothetical board question:
If I (a capitalist) were to post on another board, not this "differing ideologies" board. But do so from a leftist point of view (I'm interested in your method of implementation of the revolution among other things), would that be allowed? Considering my right-wing tendencies would be a non-factor since I would be discussing subjects from a hypothetical leftist view. Keep in mind I wouldn't be posting right-wing material, merely posing questions in more apt locales.

Sorry I'm unable to discuss more risque politically related topics at the moment but I'll be back on soon, fear not.

freakazoid

2nd April 2007, 07:00

Oh fuck off, you must be the only "leftist" in the world that doesn't recognise that creationism is bad science.

lol, probably. :(

A hypothetical board question:
If I (a capitalist) were to post on another board, not this "differing ideologies" board. But do so from a leftist point of view (I'm interested in your method of implementation of the revolution among other things), would that be allowed? Considering my right-wing tendencies would be a non-factor since I would be discussing subjects from a hypothetical leftist view. Keep in mind I wouldn't be posting right-wing material, merely posing questions in more apt locales.

I don't know what the answer is to your main question. But, in your current state you can post elsewhere because you are not currently restricted. It says whether or not you are restricted right above your post count.

IcarusAngel

2nd April 2007, 07:12

I would personally let some of the more inquisitive capitalists and people who are apolitical lurk around the board in order to learn, assuming they're not trolling. However, several of the OIs here are from "Protest-Warrior," at least three, who were high school aged children, who have a record of being unable to control their right-wing "rage" and keep their cool in debate. (A couple of the little pansies at Protest-Warrior -- headshot, wanderer, etc. -- even threatened me.)

Restrictions on capitalists isn't fascism or contradictory because (1) you're openly violating a well known rule in a collective; (2) these kind of organizations (political organizations) would exist in a communist society anyway, and have their privacy rights; and, (3) because we live in a capitalist system, you have to conform to capitalism at least to _some_ degree (to pay the server costs, etc., we're not living in a society "from each according to his need" just yet), that's not hypocritical.

Free-speech does not give you the right to go into someone house and start ranting about the benefits of this "military capitalism" you seem to advocate -- Communism is about preventing subjugation to higher classes, as well as free-speech. And even if free-speech and communism did proclaim the right of everybody to say what they wanted at any time, thus making the forum hypocritical in regards to free-speech, it would then be just as hypocritical for AmericaFirst to come on here claiming he's going to "ignore the rules," thereby ignoring his own self-professed beliefs in "property rights" (capitalism), and is thus engaging in force against the board. Furthermore, if free-speech means that anybody should have their say, why doesn't the corporate media give equal time to the left? Doesn't that prove that their bias is thus right-wing, defeating the ridiculous "liberal media" claim?

One of the ways I was able to defeat protest-warrior was by sticking to this kind of elementary logic, which, again, angered and outraged the Protest-Warriors, causing them on occasion to engage in ad-hominem attacks, threats, flooding their own message board, etc.

IcarusAngel

2nd April 2007, 07:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:00 am
I don't know what the answer is to your main question.

I think if "AmericaFirst" wants to "pretend" to be a "leftist" and ask questions about leftist music, politics, and philosophy in the other forums, he should be given a test, like the kind he (supposedly) took in the military, only this time about leftist theory and thought. You can't answer a question unless you know what it is you're trying to solve. You can't ask "why" unless you have some knowledge about the situation. Perhaps I'll write up such a quiz at my office tomorrow.

But since "AmericaFirst" has not only misunderstood leftist theory and something as basic as free-speech already, and seems to have no understandings of even his own philosophy (claiming he "worked hard in the military" has nothing to do at all with capitalism), I'm inclined to believe he's just a troll.

freakazoid

2nd April 2007, 07:48

I don't think that he is trolling because he seems to be asking questions and seems to actually want to know the answers.

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd April 2007, 07:53

Restriction

What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behaviour that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.

Who is restricted?

In general, anyone who is ideologically opposed to the revolutionary leftist vision of this board is restricted to OI.

Anyone who defends capitalism or otherwise opposes worker liberation is automatically restricted. Anyone who opposes the rights of any other oppressed group is similarly restricted. This includes so-called "pro-lifers" or anyone else who opposes the right to abortion on demand.

Primitivists of all varieties are also restricted. Our vision on this board is the revolutionary reconstruction of civilized society, not its destruction. Anyone opposing structured society or technology in general is inherently anti-working class and so not welcome on this board. Primitivists are, however, tolerated in the Opposing Ideologies forum.

In addition, religious preachers of any sort are automatically restricted. Justifying religious hierarchy, preaching to or attempting to convert other members, or in any other way promoting religion is not tolerated on this board. If any religious sentiments are expressed, they obviously belong in the “Religion” subforum in OI but this is not to say that preaching is acceptable in "Religion".

Personal beliefs/positions on religion/spirituality should not affect an individual's overall status on RevLeft if kept within the Religion forum. Though this is not to say people won't be held accountable for otherwise unacceptable behaviour, nor that religious extremism is tolerated.

This person was restricted/banned, why?

In the daily happenings at the board, members sometimes make comments that are unacceptable at this site, comments that are racist, sexist or homophobic for example. This usually will result in a restriction, and if the problem is deemed serious enough by the membership, a ban. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this is the case.

Is anyone ever unrestricted?

Yes, there have been many cases where a person has been forgiven and accepted back into the fold. It isn't easy however, because it usually requires genuine change for the membership to forgive and forget. It's hard for us to believe someone who says they are no longer racist/sexist/homophobic for example. However, as time passes by, and the person's comments continue to reflect a positive change, we become determined to see this member accepted after what then would become a learning experience for him/her.

(From the RevLeft guidelines (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=boardrules).)

Demogorgon

2nd April 2007, 08:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:29 am

I could go on, but I think I've illustrated the point. Let me just end with this: try to understand how morality really functions, not how some people say it functions, or think it functions. If morality were objective, morality wouldn't change, would it? Yet look at how popular moral opinion has changed over the last 50 years. And also, refrain from simply saying "but that's not objective" when I spell out subjective morality. That's not a powerful critique.
For the sake of people's scroll buttons, I will just quote this part of your post, bt I suspect I will refer to other parts as well.

You say that popular moral opinion has changed over the last fifty years. I however am not entirely sure that it has. I think the way people have applied their opinion has changed obviously, but I don't think there has been any shift in the basic principles people hold. For example, fifty years ago, people were not as accepting of gays as they are now, you might say this shows a shift in moral opinion, but I don't think it does. Were people more cruel fifty years ago than they are now? Not really, just more ignorant. We need to seperate between moral values and the applied morality. The way we apply our values will be coloured by all sorts of things, knowledge, political realities, life experience, mood even, but our values themselves will be much more solid.

Now des this mean there is an objective morality? You know from a human perspective I think there is. We have a sense of morality, our conscience for a reason I reckon, and that is ebcause it is literally good for our survival to have it. Any living creature has an interest not only in it's own survival but in the survival of the species, shown, not least by an obsessive need to pass on its gense, and humans are not when you come down to it, much different. Our ability to empathise, to care for others, to stand united rather than squabble and divide ourselves is very good for our survival prospects, and that I believe is why we have a sense of right and wrong, it is an evolutionary quirk to keep us alive.

On that basis I think it is logical for any person to have a moral osition centred on what is best for human survival, which can be interpreted to mean what is best for the human race as a whole. I do not think it unreasonable to say that what benefits humanity is good and what harms it is bad, and from a human perspective that absolute. Of course if I was a space monster from the planet zog, that would not be a logical position and I would have no reason to care about humans over anything else, so it is not objective in the sense it somehow exists unchanging beyond people, but looking from a human perspective I think you can see it from a human perspective as objective.

Of course how we apply it and how we decide what is best for humanity is where we will disagree, but that I believe is not down to moral differences, but down to normal human differences over means and method, differing levels of knowledge on the subject, perceiving things from different backgrounds etc. At the centre of our thinking though, barring the odd sociopath, we have the same basic moral goal.

Zero

2nd April 2007, 19:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:19 pm
The internet, created by the military is a recent and famous example.
Got to butt in here.

This is a common idea, and it isn't true in the slightest. A particle physicist from California who moved to New Zealand to study particle collision in the CERN particle collider wrote the first web browser, designed the first server software, and the basic HTML language for interpretation by the many different styles of computers at the time.

Eventually DARPA networked their own computers after MIT, Berkeley, and the techies at CERN were able to publish their results.

Proletarian invention through and through.

Jazzratt

2nd April 2007, 19:59

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+April 02, 2007 06:24 am--> (IcarusAngel @ April 02, 2007 06:24 am)
[email protected] 02, 2007 06:00 am
I don't know what the answer is to your main question.

I think if "AmericaFirst" wants to "pretend" to be a "leftist" and ask questions about leftist music, politics, and philosophy in the other forums, he should be given a test, like the kind he (supposedly) took in the military, only this time about leftist theory and thought. [/b]
Why? No one else has had to do that and it's a silly idea anyway, the whole point of his wanting access to the other forums is to learn.

You can't answer a question unless you know what it is you're trying to solve. You can't ask "why" unless you have some knowledge about the situation. Perhaps I'll write up such a quiz at my office tomorrow.
Are you always such a pretentious cock to people?

But since "AmericaFirst" has not only misunderstood leftist theory and something as basic as free-speech already, and seems to have no understandings of even his own philosophy (claiming he "worked hard in the military" has nothing to do at all with capitalism), I'm inclined to believe he's just a troll.
Failing to understand something is not trolling, you silly ****.

Publius

2nd April 2007, 20:28

I sort of cribbed my thesis from a Steven Pinker article. It might be elucidating for you to read it: http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge206.html#pinker

You say that popular moral opinion has changed over the last fifty years. I however am not entirely sure that it has. I think the way people have applied their opinion has changed obviously, but I don't think there has been any shift in the basic principles people hold. For example, fifty years ago, people were not as accepting of gays as they are now, you might say this shows a shift in moral opinion, but I don't think it does.

That's exactly what it shows. What else COULD it show?

Morality is determined

Were people more cruel fifty years ago than they are now?

Yes. Towards gays, towards blacks, toward communists, towards atheists, towards whatever. Compare American prejudices from now and then.

Now Americans, and all people, really, are still quite cruel, because they are still quite ignorant. But situations today are CLEARLY better situations previous to this anywhere in the world.

Not really, just more ignorant. We need to seperate between moral values and the applied morality. The way we apply our values will be coloured by all sorts of things, knowledge, political realities, life experience, mood even, but our values themselves will be much more solid.

Why? What are values composed of? Are they not constructed from ideas and actions? Don't ideas change with time? Doesn't everyone have a different set of experiences?

Values are created by learning, and learning is influenced by your environment, and by your own mind. They aren't platonic entities floating out in space.

Now des this mean there is an objective morality? You know from a human perspective I think there is. We have a sense of morality, our conscience for a reason I reckon, and that is ebcause it is literally good for our survival to have it.

We do of course have some sense of innate morality, or at least most of us do. But this innate moral sense only goes so far. Look at the Milgram experiments. Look at Zimbardo's prison experiment. Average people can do 'immoral' things very easily, if put in the proper situations. I don't think that says a whole lot for our innate objective morality.

We have it, yes. And without it we would probably all just kill each other off, yes. But it's by no means perfect, because we have other instincts too, like an instinct to bow to men in lab coats. To have a true morality, a true moral sense we need to use moral reasoning, consisting of tools like basic logic, in addition to our sense of empathy.

Any living creature has an interest not only in it's own survival but in the survival of the species,

False.

Dawkins destroyed idea back in 1978 with his 'selfish gene' theory. Group selection is dead and buried.

shown, not least by an obsessive need to pass on its gense, and humans are not when you come down to it, much different.

I think your biology is a bit confused.

Our ability to empathise, to care for others, to stand united rather than squabble and divide ourselves is very good for our survival prospects, and that I believe is why we have a sense of right and wrong, it is an evolutionary quirk to keep us alive.

You're sounding a lot like Dawkins and Pinker. That's good. I agree with them, and you on this issue. We do have an innate sense of morality. But that isn't the same thing as an objective morality. For example, people will not readily push another human being in front of a train, as that goes against their basic instinct. But what if you put them in a situation where the only way to save 5 people is to sacrafice that 1? Well then our 'morality instince' would have us act in a way that's actually detrimental to basic morality. Our innate moral sense is thus good, but incomplete.

On that basis I think it is logical for any person to have a moral osition centred on what is best for human survival, which can be interpreted to mean what is best for the human race as a whole.

Well, in a sense, you're right, in that no matter what you or I think, the action that will be passed on is the one that best propagates itself through genes and memes.

I do not think it unreasonable to say that what benefits humanity is good and what harms it is bad, and from a human perspective that absolute.

I think it's a reasonable, because I too am a human who shares those thoughts.

But really, in a broader sense, those views are purely arbitrary. I'm sure dogs, if they could develop a moral sense, would have an 'objective morality' rather different than ours in some key respects.

Of course if I was a space monster from the planet zog, that would not be a logical position

Exactly. You're thinking ahead of even me, as I wrote the previous response before reading this line.

and I would have no reason to care about humans over anything else, so it is not objective in the sense it somehow exists unchanging beyond people, but looking from a human perspective I think you can see it from a human perspective as objective.

I would call it 'subjective' because it is subjective to human thought and emotion. And it is.

That's subjective morality. This is like Publishers Clearinghouse: you might be a subjectivist and not even know it!

Of course how we apply it and how we decide what is best for humanity is where we will disagree, but that I believe is not down to moral differences, but down to normal human differences over means and method, differing levels of knowledge on the subject, perceiving things from different backgrounds etc. At the centre of our thinking though, barring the odd sociopath, we have the same basic moral goal.

Not necessarily. We're free to make our own goals, ultimately. And we're free to make out moral decisions, to a degree. That's morality.

pusher robot

2nd April 2007, 20:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:52 pm
This is a common idea, and it isn't true in the slightest. A particle physicist from California who moved to New Zealand to study particle collision in the CERN particle collider wrote the first web browser, designed the first server software, and the basic HTML language for interpretation by the many different styles of computers at the time.

Eventually DARPA networked their own computers after MIT, Berkeley, and the techies at CERN were able to publish their results.

Proletarian invention through and through.
I have to strongly disagree. What you say is only true for WWW, the world-wide-web. But you kiddies may not realize that the "Internet" was around for a long time before the WWW. The fundamental technology behind the internet is not HTTP but TCP/IP, and that was indeed developed by DARPA employees, which started the ARPANET in the seventies. ARPANET soon encompassed military and educational networks and went fully TCP/IP in 1983. Additional educational and commercial institutes developed and connected a major backbone called NSFNET and that network became what is now known as the "Internet." HTTP, developed at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee, was publicly released in 1993, some ten years after the TCP/IP-based internet was developed.

FTP, SMTP, TELNET, and GOPHER are all examples of things that existed on the internet before HTTP was developed at CERN. So the statement that "The Internet" (not the web) was originally developed by the U.S. military is basically correct.

ZX3

2nd April 2007, 20:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:12 am

Restrictions on capitalists isn't fascism or contradictory because (1) you're openly violating a well known rule in a collective; (2) these kind of organizations (political organizations) would exist in a communist society anyway, and have their privacy rights; and, (3) because we live in a capitalist system, you have to conform to capitalism at least to _some_ degree (to pay the server costs, etc., we're not living in a society "from each according to his need" just yet), that's not hypocritical.

I know nothing of the mechanics of how these websites work. My guess is that there are more than one server out there from which Rev Left can contract with(I believe there had been a recent change due to some problems recently as I recall).

Prsumably, there is a limit to how many sites a server can serve. Why should that situation change in a communist community? In such a community, what is the basis for determining who should occupy the limited capacity of a server?

IcarusAngel

2nd April 2007, 22:42

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 02, 2007 06:59 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 02, 2007 06:59 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:24 am

[email protected] 02, 2007 06:00 am
I don't know what the answer is to your main question.

I think if "AmericaFirst" wants to "pretend" to be a "leftist" and ask questions about leftist music, politics, and philosophy in the other forums, he should be given a test, like the kind he (supposedly) took in the military, only this time about leftist theory and thought.
Why? No one else has had to do that and it's a silly idea anyway, the whole point of his wanting access to the other forums is to learn.[/b]

Like I had noted, I don't really care who goes where. I said that in the context of allowing only one person who has an opposing ideology. This is because there are "Restricted Members" who seem far more interested in genuine debate, and this would prove that. If you let him go and "pretend to be leftist" you're just wasting time -- that's not how you debate. And by choosing the "dumb one" it seems it would make it easier for the leftists on this board to say "well, we tried again to allow one conservative to post in the other forums and he did nothing but flame." I would think leftists would be above such shenanigans.

Aren't you the guy who on page one of this thread that if he had access to the the other forums he'd just "disrupt the board." Now he's here to "learn." What?

Are you always such a pretentious cock to people?

I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and I allow them to make their case before I will ever reject their logic/arguments. Hardly something someone who is pretentious would do.

Failing to understand something is not trolling, you silly ****.

Asking questions without any knowledge is a form of trolling.

Jazzratt

2nd April 2007, 23:00

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+April 02, 2007 09:42 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ April 02, 2007 09:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:59 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:24 am

[email protected] 02, 2007 06:00 am
I don't know what the answer is to your main question.

I think if "AmericaFirst" wants to "pretend" to be a "leftist" and ask questions about leftist music, politics, and philosophy in the other forums, he should be given a test, like the kind he (supposedly) took in the military, only this time about leftist theory and thought.
Why? No one else has had to do that and it's a silly idea anyway, the whole point of his wanting access to the other forums is to learn.

Like I had noted, I don't really care who goes where. I said that in the context of allowing only one person who has an opposing ideology. This is because there are "Restricted Members" who seem far more interested in genuine debate, and this would prove that. If you let him go and "pretend to be leftist" you're just wasting time -- that's not how you debate. And by choosing the "dumb one" it seems it would make it easier for the leftists on this board to say "well, we tried again to allow one conservative to post in the other forums and he did nothing but flame." [/b]
I'm not interested in "debating" with this guy but if he wants to learn a thing or two about communism why the fuck should he not be allowed? because he doesn't pass your snobbish standards? He seems incredibly unlikely to do "nothing but flame" given how he has behaved in a civil manner towards us.

Aren't you the guy who on page one of this thread that if he had access to the the other forums he'd just "disrupt the board." Now he's here to "learn." What?
Clearly his later posts changed my opinion on him, that kind of thing happens a lot.

Are you always such a pretentious cock to people?

I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and I allow them to make their case before I will ever reject their logic/arguments. Hardly something someone who is pretentious would do.
:lol: I suppose your deference to bourgeois academics and your pretensions to being some kind of political expert are not symptoms either.

Failing to understand something is not trolling, you silly ****.

Asking questions without any knowledge is a form of trolling.
No it isn't. Trolling is to deliberately incite flames and disrupt the normal flow of a message board, something you are far closer to be guilty of than someone who is acting with genuine interest and self confessed ignorance.

IcarusAngel

2nd April 2007, 23:30

I'm not interested in "debating" with this guy but if he wants to learn a thing or two about communism why the fuck should he not be allowed? because he doesn't pass your snobbish standards? He seems incredibly unlikely to do "nothing but flame" given how he has behaved in a civil manner towards us.

I didn't say he shouldn't be able to "learn about it." I also said (two times now) I have no problem with who goes where, but the forum rules state "right-wingers are not welcome, but tolerated within this and only this forum. " He's admitted to being a right-winger, so if you're going to let him in the other forums (i.e. philosophy) why not let Publius or someone else who clearly has a better understanding debate them as well?

I suppose your deference to bourgeois academics and your pretensions to being some kind of political expert are not symptoms either.

If I was referring to "bourgeois scholars," it would be them who I considered the political experts.

You and your cohort "chicano" said some blatantly stupid things about politics and me, so I corrected you.

It doesn't take a Political Scientist to note that there has been 43 presidents, not 200, and that there is a difference between Thomas Jefferson and Geroge W. Bush, and a foreign policy difference between democrats and Republicans.

See how we're sticking to the basics.

Also, this "bourgeois scholars" talk is nonsense-- most of the famous theorists in both Libertairan-Socialism and Marxism of the twentieth century, in Britain and in France, were involved in scholarship, and it is them I reference.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. The original FAQs on usenet of "Trolling" including asking pointless questions that you could easily obtain answers to. Like most things in regards to that word, it's debatable what constitutes trolling and what doesn't, but pointless questions have always been a hallmark of trollishness.

Trolling is to deliberately incite flames and disrupt the normal flow of a message board, something you are far closer to be guilty of than someone who is acting with genuine interest and self confessed ignorance.

Where have I done this?

Tungsten

2nd April 2007, 23:51

Jazzratt

Not really. See the problem is that you are living in an inefficient system which is completely unable to distribute its abundance.
The non-distribution is the cause of that abundence. i.e. working for one's own, as opposed to someone else's benefit.

What I'd recommend you do, so as not to have to pay these taxes is use all those "skills" you got from the military and lead a revolution in order to secure a left-libertarian society based on a technocratic economy.
And then robots will do everything for us. Yeah, we know, we know...

If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others?Because they enjoy the work more.
And the saddest thing is, you actually believe it. You're a utopian.

bloody_capitalist_sham

You have to work in socialism. If you dont why should other people provide for you?
Because then you'd be operating a "work or starve" society, which would force people to work for a living, therefore making them slaves.

Socialism is where jobs are balanced, so you can choose to do stuff you want to do, and a fair amount of jobs that just need to be done for society to function.

But, you wont be forced into a job you hate, and it would be less hours than capitalist society. so, working, in nature would be different than capitalist society.

every government would be immediately recallable.
How do you know this?

Rights would be what we have now, plus democratic control over the economy, as opposed to private control over the economy.
Which would mean that rights wouldn't be what we have now, but subject to democratic mood swings.

It is stateless though, but it something that cannot be narrowed down, because it would be like the founding fathers trying to guess what it would be like in 2007. Impossible on the specifics.
"Hey, listen to this everyone. I've just thought up a brilliant stateless, classless political system where everyone can do whatever job they want for less hours. Utopia is guaranteed."

"How's it going to work?"

"No idea, but doesn't it sound nice?"

:wacko:

ComradeRed

No I like your reasoning, owning women is not wrong. It's fully justified.
Nice evasion, there. Claiming to be an amoralist and then morally condemning something.

But please note that a "moral" argument is worse than an illogical argument as you can justify ANYTHING with morality.

Don't worry, you have plenty of company. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=64497&st=0)

Do I believe that it's unjustified actions? Yeah; do I believe they are "evil"? No.
Semantics.

bezdomni

2nd April 2007, 23:52

QUOTE
Oh fuck off, you must be the only "leftist" in the world that doesn't recognise that creationism is bad science.

lol, probably. :(

This is nothing to be proud of.

Please learn how to think for yourself.

Jazzratt

2nd April 2007, 23:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:30 pm

I'm not interested in "debating" with this guy but if he wants to learn a thing or two about communism why the fuck should he not be allowed? because he doesn't pass your snobbish standards? He seems incredibly unlikely to do "nothing but flame" given how he has behaved in a civil manner towards us.

I didn't say he shouldn't be able to "learn about it." I also said (two times now) I have no problem with who goes where, but the forum rules state "right-wingers are not welcome, but tolerated within this and only this forum. " He's admitted to being a right-winger, so if you're going to let him in the other forums (i.e. philosophy) why not let Publius or someone else who clearly has a better understanding debate them as well?
Because he has asked, Publius has not.

I suppose your deference to bourgeois academics and your pretensions to being some kind of political expert are not symptoms either.

You and your cohort "chicano" Firstly I have no idea who the hell chicano so your use of 'cohort' is really strange.
said some blatantly stupid things about politics and me, so I corrected you.

It doesn't take a Political Scientist to note that there has been 43 presidents, not 200, Oh for fuck's sake. That's just evidence you've never really interacted with normal people outside of whatever branch of academia you have a hard on for. had you actually done this you would have noted that they are given to this idiosyncrasy of speech known as "exaggeration" - I'm fairly sure you know what it is because in some respects you're not an idiot.
and that there is a difference between Thomas Jefferson and Geroge W. Bush,
Strawman. As far as I'm aware neither of us claimed they were the same.

and a foreign policy difference between democrats and Republicans.
Only rhetorically.

Also, this "bourgeois scholars" talk is nonsense-- most of the famous theorists in both Libertairan-Socialism and Marxism of the twentieth century, in Britain and in France, were involved in scholarship, and it is them I reference. Brilliant. I'm referencing "some bloke down the pub" and he's telling you where you can stick it.

No it isn't.

Yes it is. The original FAQs on usenet of "Trolling" including asking pointless questions that you could easily obtain answers to. Like most things in regards to that word, it's debatable what constitutes trolling and what doesn't, but pointless questions have always been a hallmark of trollishness.
We have already established that the questions most likely will not be in the interest of lowering the quality of the board or anything like that and the whole point of the learning forum we have is that no one is judged negatively for the questions they ask. Not all of us were sent to university by mummy and daddy so not all of us will be asking questions like:
"With reference to Dead White Guy A what do you think of the theories of Old White Guy A and his criticisms of Dead White guy B?"

Trolling is to deliberately incite flames and disrupt the normal flow of a message board, something you are far closer to be guilty of than someone who is acting with genuine interest and self confessed ignorance.

Where have I done this?
If being an irritating little shit is not inciting flames, then I am at a loss to describe what else is.

Jazzratt

2nd April 2007, 23:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:51 pm
Jazzratt

Not really. See the problem is that you are living in an inefficient system which is completely unable to distribute its abundance.
The non-distribution is the cause of that abundence. i.e. working for one's own, as opposed to someone else's benefit.
No it isn't. Our technology is.

If 10 people are in a room, and they're paid equally, why would one work harder than others?Because they enjoy the work more.
And the saddest thing is, you actually believe it. You're a utopian.
Oh yes, I forgot that people didn't put more time and effort into things they enjoyed, especially compared to people who don't enjoy those things.

IcarusAngel

3rd April 2007, 00:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 10:52 pm
Because he has asked, Publius has not.

You seem to not be able to comprehend the forum guidelines, posted at the top of this forum. Apparently, right-wingers are only "tolerated" in this forum. Right-wingers who do not accept this rule are to "fuck off and never come back."

There is no addendum to the rule stating that "unless you ask nicely, you can go into the other forums."

So it's hypocritical to allow one Conservative into the other forums, but not more inquisitive social democrats. Conservatives would, in fact, be harder to convert.

At protest-warrior, I was able to convince two Libertairans (Goose, and, aptly named, "Libertarian") to switch over to Libertarian-socialism. I was never able to convince one of the neo-cons in my beliefs, though I certainly defeated them in debate. The ponit is that those who are the farthest from leftist beliefs are the least likely to convert, especially in the "conservative" ideology. Most of them are just too far gone to be converted to any form of left-libertarianism.

Oh for fuck's sake. That's just evidence you've never really interacted with normal people outside of whatever branch of academia you have a hard on for. had you actually done this you would have noted that they are given to this idiosyncrasy of speech known as "exaggeration" - I'm fairly sure you know what it is because in some respects you're not an idiot.

I'm "interacting" with people here, aren't I? And let's be honest with ourselves, this isn't exactly a Rhodes scholar forum. One of the reasons why I like to post on the internet is to get away from the "people around me" for awhile.

Strawman. As far as I'm aware neither of us claimed they were the same.

You basically said all politicians are the same.

Only rhetorically.

This is the point "Chicano" made; a self-proclaimed "libertarian-marxist," a term he's decided to denigrate. To support himself, he cited the 1998 Iraq Liberation Iraq, which actually forbade the use of the military to overthrow saddam. And a coup is all out different from a war. Bad as though they may be, they usually result to far less loss of life.

For example, Ronald Reagan overthrowing the Sandinistas probably killed about 30,000 people, this war has killed perhaps 200,000.

He also made a reference to Cuba, equally misleading. The Cuban missle crisis killed a few hundred cubans and a lot of property damage. But again, not comparable to Iraq.

We have already established that the questions most likely will not be in the interest of lowering the quality of the board or anything like that and the whole point of the learning forum we have is that no one is judged negatively for the questions they ask. Not all of us were sent to university by mummy and daddy so not all of us will be asking questions like:
"With reference to Dead White Guy A what do you think of the theories of Old White Guy A and his criticisms of Dead White guy B?"

We have also already established that "AmericaFirst" entering the other forums and sub-forums would be a violation of forum policy. So if that happens, why don't we just have a free-for-all?

And you realize of course nearly all the libertarian-socialists and left-libertairans were white. This is another "shooting yourself in the foot" tactic.

If being an irritating little shit is not inciting flames, then I am at a loss to describe what else is.

Again, you're "confused" on your definitions. To troll isn't necessarily to flame. As one faq puts it, Troll post: "A posting designed specifically to generate followups about something trivial, but not in the sense of a flame."

What I do is called being "factual, logical, and rational," which is not included in the definiton. Posting dumb questions just to incite people (as America first has done, claiming he's also going to "ignore the rules" blah blah) is trolling.

Trolling also includes posting "blatantly incorrect facts, misspellings, and concepts." So maybe you should study the definition of troll yourself before using the word against others.

freakazoid

3rd April 2007, 00:23

This is nothing to be proud of.

Please learn how to think for yourself.

I do think for myself.

edit - what is this Protest-Warrior that keeps getting mentioned?

JazzRemington

3rd April 2007, 00:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:23 pm

This is nothing to be proud of.

Please learn how to think for yourself.

I do think for myself.

edit - what is this Protest-Warrior that keeps getting mentioned?
Right-wing people who infiltrate leftist protests withthe intent of "disrupting them." They always end up getting the shit beat out of them, and then whine about how leftists (whom they think are pacifists) are hypocrits.

Jazzratt

3rd April 2007, 00:44

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+April 02, 2007 11:19 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ April 02, 2007 11:19 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 10:52 pm
Because he has asked, Publius has not.

You seem to not be able to comprehend the forum guidelines, posted at the top of this forum. Apparently, right-wingers are only "tolerated" in this forum. Right-wingers who do not accept this rule are to "fuck off and never come back."

There is no addendum to the rule stating that "unless you ask nicely, you can go into the other forums." [/b]
No one has actually asked before.

So it's hypocritical to allow one Conservative into the other forums, but not more inquisitive social democrats. Conservatives would, in fact, be harder to convert.

At protest-warrior, I was able to convince two Libertairans (Goose, and, aptly named, "Libertarian") to switch over to Libertarian-socialism. I was never able to convince one of the neo-cons in my beliefs, though I certainly defeated them in debate. The ponit is that those who are the farthest from leftist beliefs are the least likely to convert, especially in the "conservative" ideology. Most of them are just too far gone to be converted to any form of left-libertarianism.
I am not part of a church, I do not seek to convert anyone.

Oh for fuck's sake. That's just evidence you've never really interacted with normal people outside of whatever branch of academia you have a hard on for. had you actually done this you would have noted that they are given to this idiosyncrasy of speech known as "exaggeration" - I'm fairly sure you know what it is because in some respects you're not an idiot.

I'm "interacting" with people here, aren't I? And let's be honest with ourselves, this isn't exactly a Rhodes scholar forum. One of the reasons why I like to post on the internet is to get away from the "people around me" for awhile.

We have also already established that "AmericaFirst" entering the other forums and sub-forums would be a violation of forum policy. So if that happens, why don't we just have a free-for-all? A. Slippery slope. B. It doesn't matter how much winging you do, it appears that he is a member rather than a restricted one.

And you realize of course nearly all the libertarian-socialists and left-libertairans were white. This is another "shooting yourself in the foot" tactic. What does it matter, the point remains that quite a lot of what DWG's had to say is either boring or irrelevant to a normal person.

If being an irritating little shit is not inciting flames, then I am at a loss to describe what else is.

Again, you're "confused" on your definitions. To troll isn't necessarily to flame. Inciting flames and flaming is different, ****.
As one faq puts it, Troll post: "A posting designed specifically to generate followups about something trivial, but not in the sense of a flame." I'd call this argument pretty damn trivial as this conversation.

What I do is called being "factual, logical, and rational," which is not included in the definiton. Posting dumb questions just to incite people (as America first has done, claiming he's also going to "ignore the rules" blah blah) is trolling.

Trolling also includes posting "blatantly incorrect facts, misspellings, and concepts." So maybe you should study the definition of troll yourself before using the word against others.
You know what, I really couldn't give a fuck any more. You are possibly the most irritating member I have ever encountered on this site and that includes all the various cappies and the one guy who got banned and made a sockpuppet account that posted horse porn everywhere. Now, maybe you will take this as me conceding to your banal "argument" and go home to your empty bed believing yourself to have somehow become a better person or whatever but I'm afraid you are and always will be just a sad and lonely reject that has to be surrounded by dry texts on libertarian-socialism and how awesome the democrats are to feel like a proper person. I on the other hand will be able to go and behave like an ordinary person, have a few drinks with my mates and sleep on a pillow that isn't damp with bitter tears of inadequacy, unlike you.

Kindly fuck off.

Jazzratt

3rd April 2007, 00:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:23 pm

This is nothing to be proud of.

Please learn how to think for yourself.

I do think for myself.
Yes, but part of thinking for yourself is also taking into account things like scientific evidence.

IcarusAngel

3rd April 2007, 00:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:44 pm
I am not part of a church, I do not seek to convert anyone.

One of the goals of the left - any leftist movement - is to get the populous to support socialism.

A. Slippery slope.

That isn't a slippery slope. It's pointing out that you're openly violating the forum rules, and then I asked you a _question_.

A question isn't an argument, so it can't be a fallacy.

You're supposed to prove your claims of any "fallacious arguments" as well.

I'd call this argument pretty damn trivial as this conversation.

Yes, I'm wondering why you asked me some blatantly stupid questions once again.

You are possibly the most irritating member I have ever encountered on this site and that includes all the various cappies and the one guy who got banned and made a sockpuppet account that posted horse porn everywhere.

People don't like logic and reason, especially idiots. That is one of the reasons dissidents are always so unpopular, they use it. That's always been true, and it always will be true.

There's nothing more "irritating" to somebody when their own statements and comments are proven to be self-contradictory and idiotic.

One of the best arguments the right-wing has going for it, is that "people are stupid" and hate logic while loving irrationality. Looking at human history, that's a tough argument to refute.

ow, maybe you will take this as me conceding to your banal "argument" and go home to your empty bed believing yourself to have somehow become a better person or whatever but I'm afraid you are and always will be just a sad and lonely reject that has to be surrounded by dry texts on libertarian-socialism and how awesome the democrats are to feel like a proper person.

That isn't what I said but, anyway, if you're going to bash Libertarian-socialism, why not calling stop for a "left-libertarian" society? It only makes us look bad.

freakazoid

3rd April 2007, 00:57

Yes, but part of thinking for yourself is also taking into account things like scientific evidence.

No, thinking for yourself only requires you to think for yourself. But lets keep that topic for another thread, that is not the purpose of this thread.

IcarusAngel

3rd April 2007, 01:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:46 pm

Right-wing people who infiltrate leftist protests withthe intent of "disrupting them." They always end up getting the shit beat out of them, and then whine about how leftists (whom they think are pacifists) are hypocrits.

Basically.

But the real story here is that Icarus, who went by 'Socialist', used to frequent the PW forums, as did I, and suffice it to say, there are a lot of idiots there, so Soci uses 'PW' as a general catch-all for ignorant right-wingers.
That's because there are several protest-warriors here (I wouldn't be surprised if "AmericaFirst" is one of them). And they weren't just ignorant and stupid, most of them were also blatantly racist. Nathyn and I went to one of the clubhouses and they continue with their ignorant claims that "all muslims are evil," blacks are this and that, etc. etc.

Ironically, this current "discussion" is a lot like protest-warrior; pointless talk going nowhere. Like in here, logic and reason would anger them, only to the point where they would start making threats etc. (which contradicted their claims that they were "peaceful right-wingers" at PW events).

After that, they pulled the forums, and now they issue a warning to their members in their private discussions asking them not to embarrass the organization and not to make posts containing "abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, racist, hateful, threatening, misogynistic, sexually oriented, obnoxious" language.

Of course I don't compare them to right-wingers in general or even conservatives; they were crazy, and they made JazzRatt here look like a genius by comparison.

bezdomni

3rd April 2007, 02:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:23 pm

This is nothing to be proud of.

Please learn how to think for yourself.

I do think for myself.

edit - what is this Protest-Warrior that keeps getting mentioned?
Then explain to me how Marxist materialism and christianity are not mutually exclusive, and how creationism is not pseudo-science.

If you think for yourself, then presumably you do not take these things as dogma...but have logical reasoning behind the way you think.

Comrade J

3rd April 2007, 02:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:39 am
Why are we talking about punk musics roots?

If you think for yourself, then presumably you do not take these things as dogma...but have logical reasoning behind the way you think.

Yes, I do. And this thread isn't for that.

Why are we talking about these things? This has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread. :(
Create a thread for it then, I'd like to hear the evidence for creationism, and why thousands of scientists are wrong about the age of the earth, why carbon dating is wrong, why we have different types of rock and fossils from different periods of times with hundreds of millions of years between them etc.

I'm not being totally sarcastic either btw, I genuinely think you should cite your reasons for thinking science is wrong about such things. (I know you believe what it says in Genesis, but I want to know why you maintain this ancient belief when all evidence points against it)

For example, I've just been reading this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6518527.stm) news story about the discovery of an ancient human that says "radiocarbon dates, obtained directly from the bones, show the person lived between 42,000 and 39,000 years ago" and I'd be interested in knowing what you think of that? Sometimes, I get the feeling that you're afraid to question your own beliefs because deep down, the rational part of your mind tells you you're wrong.

Demogorgon

3rd April 2007, 04:23

Originally posted by publius
Now Americans, and all people, really, are still quite cruel, because they are still quite ignorant. But situations today are CLEARLY better situations previous to this anywhere in the world.
Well let's not get too tied down on what Americans think, I'm not American, but it does raise an interesting point. I notice people here are more tolerant by and large than people in America. Northern European culture and all. Now that might support your view that we have a different outlook on morality, but again I say no, we are simply applying the same basic moral principles differently.

Why? What are values composed of? Are they not constructed from ideas and actions? Don't ideas change with time? Doesn't everyone have a different set of experiences?Of course they do, which is why everyone has different applied morality. But that isn't what I am saying is objective, I am rather saying the basic starting points we build on are universal for all people (minus sciopaths).

Values are created by learning, and learning is influenced by your environment, and by your own mind. They aren't platonic entities floating out in space.No they aren't. But at the same time the human mind is such that it will almost inevitably arrive at certain vakues. Thanks to our ability to feel empathy. You will be hard pushed to find many cultures that value cold blooded murder.

Look at the Milgram experiments. Look at Zimbardo's prison experiment. Average people can do 'immoral' things very easily, if put in the proper situations. I don't think that says a whole lot for our innate objective morality.Quite, but it wasn't faulty morality causing that, it was a tendency that most people have to accept authority that caused them to act in that way. I never claimed that people's conscience will somehow outweigh various other things going on in their heads at all times. People are quite capable of knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway.

But what if you put them in a situation where the only way to save 5 people is to sacrafice that 1? Well then our 'morality instince' would have us act in a way that's actually detrimental to basic morality. Our innate moral sense is thus good, but incomplete.I disagree here. I do not think it goes against basic morality to save the five people in this situation. At any rate though, I do not think this is particularly relevent to the argument, it is more down to how we apply our morality.

I would call it 'subjective' because it is subjective to human thought and emotion. And it is.

That's subjective morality. This is like Publishers Clearinghouse: you might be a subjectivist and not even know it!Not really. it depends of course on what you mean by objective. But I think it is reasonable to say that something universal to all people is objective as far as people go. I think the definition of objective is wide enough to include something that is natural to people.

freakazoid

3rd April 2007, 18:52

I'm not being totally sarcastic either btw, I genuinely think you should cite your reasons for thinking science is wrong about such things. (I know you believe what it says in Genesis, but I want to know why you maintain this ancient belief when all evidence points against it)

Somewhere in the religion section I had said that I will, and I still plan on it. But I haven't been able to work on it because I have been busy getting ready for the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot :D, that and I have been distracted with Live Chat and playing Halo2 on Live, :D

Publius

3rd April 2007, 20:22

Well let's not get too tied down on what Americans think, I'm not American, but it does raise an interesting point. I notice people here are more tolerant by and large than people in America. Northern European culture and all. Now that might support your view that we have a different outlook on morality, but again I say no, we are simply applying the same basic moral principles differently.

I don't think that a meaningful distinction exists between those two ideas.

Of course they do, which is why everyone has different applied morality. But that isn't what I am saying is objective, I am rather saying the basic starting points we build on are universal for all people (minus sciopaths).

I think that's evidently false. Some people really, honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong. They have a different morality than I do. Use your imagination here.

No they aren't. But at the same time the human mind is such that it will almost inevitably arrive at certain vakues. Thanks to our ability to feel empathy. You will be hard pushed to find many cultures that value cold blooded murder.

Explain how our great innate morality allowed to use to brutally rape and kill other tribes, exclude people of different races, lie, committ adultury, etc.?

If we had a great sense of innate morality, we would moral by nature. But we aren't. So we don't.

It's really that simple. So we have to augment this basic sense with extra rules, witha better system.

Quite, but it wasn't faulty morality causing that, it was a tendency that most people have to accept authority that caused them to act in that way. I never claimed that people's conscience will somehow outweigh various other things going on in their heads at all times. People are quite capable of knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway.

Morality is what you do, not what you say you do.

It doesn't matter if your rape someone and then 'feel sorry' afterword. It's still immoral. That you think this somehow not the case is a ridiculous absurdity.

If you do an immoral act, you are immoral, by definition.

I disagree here. I do not think it goes against basic morality to save the five people in this situation.

I don't either, which is my point.

I think that's the most moral decision, but human beings have an innate aversion to killing, which prevents them from accurately answering this moral dilemma.

At any rate though, I do not think this is particularly relevent to the argument, it is more down to how we apply our morality.

I don't understand how you can separate 'morality' from 'what you do'. They are one in the same.

Not really. it depends of course on what you mean by objective. But I think it is reasonable to say that something universal to all people is objective as far as people go. I think the definition of objective is wide enough to include something that is natural to people.

Well, you're wrong. You need only look at the 'morality' of ancient humanity to see that our 'objective moral guide' is pretty bad in a lot of cases.

t_wolves_fan

3rd April 2007, 22:27

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 03, 2007 09:26 pm
Hahaha, how the fuck has a thread created by some deluded American capitalist turned into a discussion on the roots of punk rock?
Good question. At least this discussion has some kind of vague importance to someone somewhere, unlike most discussions about a failed political-economic system.

Demogorgon

4th April 2007, 12:05

Originally posted by publius
I don't think that a meaningful distinction exists between those two ideas.I think I may have been rather vague here. What I mean is that there is no long moral rule book telling you how to act in each individual situation as some like Kant might have imagined it. Rather our innate morality comes down to rather broad set of priinciples. It is up to us to attempt to apply these to every situation we might be faced with.

I think that's evidently false. Some people really, honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong. They have a different morality than I do. Use your imagination here.But the question is why they think this? Is there something in their conscience telling them it is wrong. I doubt it, I think they try to rationalise they're disliking of something by calling it immoral. And their disliking of it could come from all sorts of reasons, such us upbringing, fear of their own sexuality etc. For example somene of my Grandparents generation will almost certainly have believed homosexuality wrong in their youth, but may very well have changed their view later on. I don't think this is a change in their morality, rather a change in the information available to them made them reasses this topic in new light.

Explain how our great innate morality allowed to use to brutally rape and kill other tribes, exclude people of different races, lie, committ adultury, etc.?

If we had a great sense of innate morality, we would moral by nature. But we aren't. So we don't.
Well hang on a moment here. Just because we know something is wrong doesn't mean we aren't going to do it. Granted we will often try to rationalise our behaviour to make it seem right, but we don't go about utterly convinced everything we do is right. One of the nastiest things about people is that we are very capable of doing terrible things, fully in the knowledge that they are wrong.

You say, or at least imply, that at various times in history people have been relatively nastier than at other times. Well of course that is true. Horrible as we are these days, we aren't keeping slaves or crucifying people. Though a bit of both still goes on illegally in parts of the world. But that is easily explained. I think that in brutal times people are more inclined to go with the flow than to follow their consciences or are at times forced into things or feel they are doing the lesser of two evils or whatever. Again this is more psychological than moral.

It's really that simple. So we have to augment this basic sense with extra rules, witha better system.But hang on, how are we to know what a better system is, if it is entirely subjective? Based on our preferences maybe? But if you are correct here some people will have preferences leading us in the wrong direction

Morality is what you do, not what you say you do.

It doesn't matter if your rape someone and then 'feel sorry' afterword. It's still immoral. That you think this somehow not the case is a ridiculous absurdity.

If you do an immoral act, you are immoral, by definition. Well hang on here, we are in dangerous territory now. If anyone who does anything immoral is an immoral person then nobody except a babe in arms is going to be moral are they? Everyone does bad things from time to time. Morality defines actions not people.

If somebody rapes somebody and then feels sorry about it, they have done something very immoral and know perfectly well what they have done. It doesn't make them a better person, but it does show that their sense of morality is perfectly workable despite the fact that they have ignored it.

I think that's the most moral decision, but human beings have an innate aversion to killing, which prevents them from accurately answering this moral dilemma.Well yeah, and this is what I mean about applying our morality. One of the innate moral rules that we have is we don't kill, but out in the real world this isn't always so clear cut. It is hence difficult for us to know what to do sometimes.

I don't understand how you can separate 'morality' from 'what you do'. They are one in the same.No they aren't, because we do not perform every action thinking it is right. And crucially we aren't aways sure what is right as different rules come into conflict with each other.
Well, you're wrong. You need only look at the 'morality' of ancient humanity to see that our 'objective moral guide' is pretty bad in a lot of cases.But ancient humans by and large still abhored things like murder from what we know. They often lived in difficult circumstances though, which would have had an aadverse effect on their psychology causing them to do bad things, but that is different from morality.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

4th April 2007, 20:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 05:37 pm
Haha I still visit conservative forums, but they all agree with me, and where's the fun in that? I'm just saying if President Bush said from now on a certain ideology was only allowed to be expressed in one small corner of the media, I'm sure you'd all be quite afronted.
The only ideological viewpoint that is seriously represented in the mainstream media in any meaningful way is a bourgeois, pro-American, pro-Capitalist one. "Free speech" in America is a myth; the ability of ideas and information to be disseminated in the USA is largely determined not by their quality or importance, but by the amount of wealth and power of the people who support them.

wtfm8lol

4th April 2007, 22:13

Originally posted by patton+April 04, 2007 03:49 pm--> (patton @ April 04, 2007 03:49 pm)
Originally posted by Fly Pan [email protected] 04, 2007 07:35 pm

[email protected] 31, 2007 05:37 pm
Haha I still visit conservative forums, but they all agree with me, and where's the fun in that? I'm just saying if President Bush said from now on a certain ideology was only allowed to be expressed in one small corner of the media, I'm sure you'd all be quite afronted.
The only ideological viewpoint that is seriously represented in the mainstream media in any meaningful way is a bourgeois, pro-American, pro-Capitalist one. "Free speech" in America is a myth; the ability of ideas and information to be disseminated in the USA is largely determined not by their quality or importance, but by the amount of wealth and power of the people who support them.
Yes but thats because the majority of American population is pro American and pro Capitalist. [/b]
exactly. if few people want to hear shitty leftist whining, few people are going to waste their money putting it out there. It might not be the best system for various reasons, but you can't pretend its difficult for anyone who is interested to get the opinion of any minority political group whenever they want.

Phalanx

4th April 2007, 23:09

But most American's views are based on what information the media gives them. It doesn't matter whether or not it's pro-capitalist or pro-leftist, the media in general shapes the viewpoint of most people. If our school systems were better, more Americans would have a questioning viewpoint.

wtfm8lol

4th April 2007, 23:19

But most American's views are based on what information the media gives them.

agreed. that's one of the reasons i think it's not the best system. unfortunately i can't think of a better one.

If our school systems were better, more Americans would have a questioning viewpoint.

again, agreed. from what i've seen in american schools (having only attended these), the lower levels rarely encourage skepticism and individual thinking. they're more inclined to give you a few biased articles and have you choose which position you agree with instead of allowing you to form your own position.

Phalanx

4th April 2007, 23:40

agreed. that's one of the reasons i think it's not the best system. unfortunately i can't think of a better one.

I think a controlled capitalist economy is the best out there. For example, Norway's top eleven percent of their population own 21 percent of the wealth. This leaves room for motivation on the working level and doesn't allow anyone to become fabulously wealthy or poor.

they're more inclined to give you a few biased articles and have you choose which position you agree with instead of allowing you to form your own position.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the school system. It could be fixed if the teachers were given greater motivation to do well. If tenure was taken away teachers would continue to do well at their jobs because they wouldn't want to lose it.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

4th April 2007, 23:44

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+April 04, 2007 04:13 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ April 04, 2007 04:13 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:49 pm

Originally posted by Fly Pan [email protected] 04, 2007 07:35 pm

[email protected] 31, 2007 05:37 pm
Haha I still visit conservative forums, but they all agree with me, and where's the fun in that? I'm just saying if President Bush said from now on a certain ideology was only allowed to be expressed in one small corner of the media, I'm sure you'd all be quite afronted.
The only ideological viewpoint that is seriously represented in the mainstream media in any meaningful way is a bourgeois, pro-American, pro-Capitalist one. "Free speech" in America is a myth; the ability of ideas and information to be disseminated in the USA is largely determined not by their quality or importance, but by the amount of wealth and power of the people who support them.
Yes but thats because the majority of American population is pro American and pro Capitalist.
exactly. if few people want to hear shitty leftist whining, few people are going to waste their money putting it out there. It might not be the best system for various reasons, but you can't pretend its difficult for anyone who is interested to get the opinion of any minority political group whenever they want. [/b]
In the statement that I quoted, AmericaFirst was implying that a diverse array of opinions are voiced in the mainstream media. I was explaining that they already keep "opposing ideologies" out of sight, essentially. The media is simply a reflection of the bourgeoisie; it's what they use to shape public opinion, awareness of issues, and the political atmosphere.

Revleft has an opposing ideologies forum to allow for debate with reactionaries, but it's designed for leftist discussion and its nuances. We already know your opinion, we already know that we disagree with it, and we already have to deal with it elsewhere. Leftism, contrary to what many of the ignorant reactionaries who come in here and complain about lack of "free speech" may think, is actually very diverse. It would be a waste of time if reactionaries came into every thread and hijacked it by going on with their cliched tales of the horrors of Communism and how hard they worked for their three cars.