Vatican lists new sinful behaviors

[letsgetfree]

Vatican lists new sinful behaviors

Story Highlights
Drugs, pollution, genetic manipulation are now included
Update announced in Vatican daily, "L'Osservatore Romano"
Sinners risk burning in hell unless absolved through confession and penitence
Recent survey finds 60 percent of Italian Catholics don't go to confession
Next Article in Living »



var clickExpire = "04/9/2008";



ROME, Italy (AP) -- A Vatican official has listed drugs, pollution and genetic manipulations as well as social and economic injustices as new areas of sinful behavior.


The Vatican has updated the list of mortal sins to relate to the age of globalization.


Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti said in an interview published on Sunday by the Vatican's daily newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, that known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole.

Girotti, who heads the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican body that issues decisions on matters of conscience and grants absolutions told the paper that whilst sin used to concern the individual mostly, today it had a mainly a social resonance, due to the phenomenon of globalization.

Catholic teaching distinguishes between lesser, so-called venial sins, and mortal sins.

When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations."

He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."

Girotti said the Catholic Church continued to be concerned by other sinful acts, including abortion and pedophilia.

He said Church authorities had reacted with rigorous measures to child abuse scandals within the clergy, but he also claimed that the issue had been excessively emphasized by the media.

His comments came at the end of a week-long Vatican conference on confession.

A recent survey said that 60 percent of Italian Catholics do not go to confession.

Traditionally the Catholic church has had a list of seven deadly sins, that of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride established by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century.

The terms entered the popular vocabulary after the publication of Dante's "Divine Comedy."

The deadly sins are in contrast with venial sins - relatively minor sins that can be forgiven.

A person that commits a mortal sin risks burning in hell unless absolved through confession and penitence.

Now the Vatican says it is time to modernize the list to fit a global world.

On hearing the Girotti's suggestion, some priests thought it was a good idea.

Father Antonio Pelayo, a Spanish priest and Vatican expert noted that it is time for both sinners and confessors to get over their obsession with sex and think about other ways humans hurt each other in the world in which they live.

"There are many other sins that are perhaps much more grave that don't have anything to do with sex - that have to do with life, that have to do with the environment, that have to do with justice," he told AP Television.

Father Greg Apparcel, a local priest said that the Pope may have been talking About this aspect of sin as a response to the recent "Italian confession" survey.

Apparcel also hinted that the announcement may have a wider agenda ahead of the Holy Father's trip to the United States and his speech to the United Nations.

"There is some sound going around that perhaps he is going to speak about ecology and environment, and if he does, this is kind of preparation for that," he sai

[letsgetfree]

It's odd that boyraping is mysteriously absent.

[RevMARKSman]

It's odd that boyraping is mysteriously absent.
That was already on the list, you nit.

Seriously, I'm getting tired of people just making fun of the Vatican when it's perpetuating many more serious social problems.

[letsgetfree]

That was already on the list, you nit.

Seriously, I'm getting tired of people just making fun of the Vatican when it's perpetuating many more serious social problems.

My bad for having a sense of humour.

I'm sorry you got molested.

I didn't, so I find it funny.

[Jazzratt]

My bad for having a sense of humour.

I'm sorry you got molested.

I didn't, so I find it funny.

What the fuck is wrong with you, arsewipe?

Anyway RevMARKSman has a point - it's more of a glaring shame that allowing people to die by opposing potentially life saving technologies such as condoms and stem cell research.

[apathy maybe]

RevMARKSman was talking about problems such as the Vatican's opposition to contraceptives. Condoms reduce incidences of AIDS, and thus the opposition to them is a serious social problem.

Your "joke" was not funny, it was stupid, and your subsequent post shows a distinct lack of understanding. I suggest you stop posting for a while and simply read. If you have any questions ask, but don't make stupid fucking comments and then get all defensive if someone pulls you up for them.

Edit: Should just note that this post was started before Jazzratt's. Even if he did finish before me.

[Atrus]

Holy shit Jazzrat I thought you hated people who took offence or took things seriously.

But I agree, thinking about how many thousands/millions of Catholics, mainly Africans, who must die from AIDS every year simply because the Pope forbids use of condoms, its nothing more than genocide with religion as an excuse.

I myself am Christian [Protestant, I suppose, not attending church but making my own beliefs] but the Pope so often makes me just call myself "religious". I would NEVER subscribe to such a corrupt and twisted organisation.

[Jazzratt]

Holy shit Jazzrat I thought you hated people who took offence or took things seriously.

There's trivial shit and then there's needless crap about molestation.I couldn't give less of a shit if this arsehole chose to say something else but because he was implying that because no one found his joke hilarious they must all have been molested, and because of this they didn't have a sense of humour, can fuck right off.


I myself am Christian [Protestant, I suppose, not attending church but making my own beliefs] but the Pope so often makes me just call myself "religious". I would NEVER subscribe to such a corrupt and twisted organisation.

So you're the benign kind of nutter?

[Atrus]

I agree with the first point there. Cba quoting it, but I'll edit in a quote if someone replies before I post this.

Yeah, I'm a benign nutter, I was brought up with religion and its not something someone can just ignore, its engraved into me, but I strongly believe that peoples beliefs shouldn't be forced upon them by organisations like the church, people should think for themselves and make an informed decision, or we end up with situations like in the deep south of america where they think that abortion is murder etc as we saw in that child abuse video. I also am totally against religion affecting government or ruling in any way. Religion is a personal thing, not something that should influence a country.

[letsgetfree]

What the fuck is wrong with you, arsewipe?

Anyway RevMARKSman has a point - it's more of a glaring shame that allowing people to die by opposing potentially life saving technologies such as condoms and stem cell research.

@ The bolded, Did I say different?

lol @ you people getting all worked up over nothing though.

Back to the thread, I don't think this sort of rhetoric even bears any relation to the religion practiced by many Catholics these days, particularly in the West. I think the Papacy and the Vatican, as institutions of 'religious authority', are becoming less and less relevant to 'modern Catholicism'.

[Jazzratt]

@ The bolded, Did I say different?

No, but you decided to trot out the tired old "zomG paedophile" crap without pointing to larger problems from within the vatican or indeed any problems you see arising from the new list of sins.


lol @ you people getting all worked up over nothing though.

Yeah, implying people were molested as children is hilarious. Dickhead.


Back to the thread, I don't think this sort of rhetoric even bears any relation to the religion practiced by many Catholics these days, particularly in the West. I think the Papacy and the Vatican, as institutions of 'religious authority', are becoming less and less relevant to 'modern Catholicism'.

You'd be incorrect. I suspect that more "moderate" catholic are becoming disillusioned with the catholic church and switching to a different brand of religious servitude (baptist, anglican or whatever)

[Bandito]

There is rarely "benign" religious thought...
In reality,when shread to pieces,it is as common as a vegan lion.

[EwokUtopia]

Id actually be interested in seeing a link which provides an actual list of the new sins, as set out by the infallible pontiff.

Considering that it is now 2008, I would wager that there are many new sins to be found on internet action. I wonder if cyber-blasphemy counts, and if my avatar is listed as a venial or a mortal sin.

Does anyone have such a link?

[letsgetfree]

No, but you decided to trot out the tired old "zomG paedophile" crap without pointing to larger problems from within the vatican or indeed any problems you see arising from the new list of sins.

I think paedophilia and the covering for the sick fucks who carry it out in the catholic church is a large problem. I just thought it is strange how they don't mention the covering up of child sex abuse, I'd consider that worse than taking drugs or anything else mentioned in the article.


Yeah, implying people were molested as children is hilarious. Dickhead.

And having to finish all your posts with an insult is also hilarious.


You'd be incorrect. I suspect that more "moderate" catholic are becoming disillusioned with the catholic church and switching to a different brand of religious servitude (baptist, anglican or whatever)

Why would these "moderate" catholics switch to a more hardline brand of christianity such as baptist or whatever.

[Atrus]

There is rarely "benign" religious thought...


Its not benign in that its inactive, I actively consider, discuss etc what I believe, but only with people who share an interest, I'd never dream of forcing it on anyone else or making important decisions which could affect other people based on it.

[which doctor]

If you don't believe what you are doing is sinful, then you are not committing sin. An interesting caveat to catholic theology.

[Jazzratt]

I think paedophilia and the covering for the sick fucks who carry it out in the catholic church is a large problem. I just thought it is strange how they don't mention the covering up of child sex abuse, I'd consider that worse than taking drugs or anything else mentioned in the article.

Have you had your head up your arse for the past year and a half or so? Or are you so intently on continuing belligerently on your strawman attacks on the catholic church that you ignore any events that contradict your personal mythology? It's not enough to simply say "I oppose the catholic church" and use that to vomit forth whatever imbecilic crap springs into your head. AT least be honest in your attacks (hint: paedophile priest scandal, cover up, apology & condemnations have all already happened - it's old news. Move the fuck on).


And having to finish all your posts with an insult is also hilarious.

I don't have to, but if I think you're a **** I'll call you a ****; ****.


Why would these "moderate" catholics switch to a more hardline brand of christianity such as baptist or whatever.

Not every brand of baptism is the nuts stuff you have over in yank land. Also there are protestant churches, orthodox churches and a whole fucking plethora of pissant little sects and subsects the moderates can fuck off to.

[Bud Struggle]

If you don't believe what you are doing is sinful, then you are not committing sin. An interesting caveat to catholic theology.

It's a little more complicated than that. If one is a Catholic, one has to take the time to fully understand the Church's reasoning for why a sin is a sin and then honestly rebut the Church's position in light of the Church's teaching. In other words, you have to prove that the Church is unfaithful to it's own logic.

A rather difficult thing to do.

[Bud Struggle]

When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations."

He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."

If you don't mind let me take these one at a time.

The Church feels people are sacred. And that any genetic manipulations are tampering with human life. The Church feels that human being should not be experimented on without their concent. Any taking of human life and changing it to suit some other purpose is doing what Dr. Josef Mengele did in Nazi Germany. Maybe a little less brutal, but in substance quite similar.

Drugs corrupt and demean any value in human life. They can be fun in some circumstances, but in general a heroin or a meth habit is something that takes the value of life and reduces it to a transaction of slavery. And just as slavery to another human is wrong--so is slavery to a substance or a drug. The same could be said for being an alcoholic.

And pollution--taking the environment that belongs to us all and corrupting it for the gain of only a few individuals.

And lastly: "as well as the widening social and economic difference between the rich and poor that cause an unbearable social injustice."--do I really need to explain that to a bunch of Commies? :D

Seriously, maybe you guys could pick at this a bit, but for the most part, it makes a lot of sense.

[Sentinel]

The Church feels people are sacred. And that any genetic manipulations are tampering with human life.

Which is an utterly reactionary stance to take. Who are the church to decide that paralysed/injured people are to 'accept their fate', when stem cell research can provide a cure? Or that children should have to be born, risking to inherit genetic diseases? Or that human lifespan shouldn't be increased when this becomes a possiblity? The list goes on, but you should get my point by now -- opposition to genetic engineering is anti-human and despicable in the extreme.


The Church feels that human being should not be experimented on without their concent.

Obviously not, as long as they can consent. Removing malicious genes which would later on cause diseases or ailments from fetuses should however obviously be done. It's not different from curing the diseases once the genes are activated and cause them, other than in the sense that it guaranteedly won't be too late. Failing to do this, or to otherwise fail to impove the genome of fetuses if the possibility exists is best described as criminal and lunacious. :glare:


Any taking of human life and changing it to suit some other purpose is doing what Dr. Josef Mengele did in Nazi Germany. Maybe a little less brutal, but in substance quite similar.

Actually it doesn't have to be similar at all, and you're applying the logical fallacy of Godwin's Law. Don't. ;)


Drugs corrupt and demean any value in human life. They can be fun in some circumstances, but in general a heroin or a meth habit is something that takes the value of life and reduces it to a transaction of slavery. And just as slavery to another human is wrong--so is slavery to a substance or a drug. The same could be said for being an alcoholic.

Nevertheless should it be up to consenting, adult human beings to decide what to do with their own bodies. Much like with abortion.


And pollution--taking the environment that belongs to us all and corrupting it for the gain of only a few individuals.

Wait, here they're actually on the right track! :ohmy: Obviously all pollution can't be avoided, but it sure should be minimised to the extent this is possible without decreasing human living standards or preventing the elevation of them. Only the abolition of capitalism could however effectively change the current, ignorant environmental policies -- and that wasn't on the Vatican's 'to do list' last I checked..


And lastly: "as well as the widening social and economic difference between the rich and poor that cause an unbearable social injustice."--do I really need to explain that to a bunch of Commies?

Sounds good, but I doubt mine and Mr Ratzinger's (or whoever wrote these 'directives') vision of how this is to be prevented are very much alike. What is meant here is likely something along the lines of 'more charity' rather than actually doing anything to shake the foundations of social inequality. :rolleyes:

[apathy maybe]

It's a little more complicated than that. If one is a Catholic, one has to take the time to fully understand the Church's reasoning for why a sin is a sin and then honestly rebut the Church's position in light of the Church's teaching. In other words, you have to prove that the Church is unfaithful to it's own logic.

A rather difficult thing to do.

I would suggest that it is only difficult if you accept the Church's position. Oh wait, you just said that.

The Church's only logic is often circular, or contradictory, (or both), or built on an illogical starting position, how are you supposed to refute that "logic" by using that "logic"?

I was raised a Catholic, but seriously, I obviously never was one, and I doubt that most of the people who go to that church are one either. Why? Because I never knew what the Church's teachings really were. I couldn't tell you why masturbation was a sin (I'm not even sure if it is by Catholic standards, I'm basing my argument on other Christian thought which I got from RE in school or from pop culture). But I can say that masturbation feels good, and that is good enough for me.

The same line goes for many other "sins", sex outside marriage, sex between two people of the same gender (a whole host of sex related things actually), drugs etc.

Anyway, what the hell, I'm going to hell, so I don't care.

[careyprice31]

Vatican lists new sinful behaviors

Story Highlights
Drugs, pollution, genetic manipulation are now included
Update announced in Vatican daily, "L'Osservatore Romano"
Sinners risk burning in hell unless absolved through confession and penitence
Recent survey finds 60 percent of Italian Catholics don't go to confession
Next Article in Living »



var clickExpire = "04/9/2008";



ROME, Italy (AP) -- A Vatican official has listed drugs, pollution and genetic manipulations as well as social and economic injustices as new areas of sinful behavior.


The Vatican has updated the list of mortal sins to relate to the age of globalization.


Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti said in an interview published on Sunday by the Vatican's daily newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, that known sins increasingly manifest themselves as behavior that damages society as a whole.

Girotti, who heads the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican body that issues decisions on matters of conscience and grants absolutions told the paper that whilst sin used to concern the individual mostly, today it had a mainly a social resonance, due to the phenomenon of globalization.

Catholic teaching distinguishes between lesser, so-called venial sins, and mortal sins.

When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations."

He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."

Girotti said the Catholic Church continued to be concerned by other sinful acts, including abortion and pedophilia.

He said Church authorities had reacted with rigorous measures to child abuse scandals within the clergy, but he also claimed that the issue had been excessively emphasized by the media.

His comments came at the end of a week-long Vatican conference on confession.

A recent survey said that 60 percent of Italian Catholics do not go to confession.

Traditionally the Catholic church has had a list of seven deadly sins, that of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride established by Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century.

The terms entered the popular vocabulary after the publication of Dante's "Divine Comedy."

The deadly sins are in contrast with venial sins - relatively minor sins that can be forgiven.

A person that commits a mortal sin risks burning in hell unless absolved through confession and penitence.

Now the Vatican says it is time to modernize the list to fit a global world.

On hearing the Girotti's suggestion, some priests thought it was a good idea.

Father Antonio Pelayo, a Spanish priest and Vatican expert noted that it is time for both sinners and confessors to get over their obsession with sex and think about other ways humans hurt each other in the world in which they live.

"There are many other sins that are perhaps much more grave that don't have anything to do with sex - that have to do with life, that have to do with the environment, that have to do with justice," he told AP Television.

Father Greg Apparcel, a local priest said that the Pope may have been talking About this aspect of sin as a response to the recent "Italian confession" survey.

Apparcel also hinted that the announcement may have a wider agenda ahead of the Holy Father's trip to the United States and his speech to the United Nations.

"There is some sound going around that perhaps he is going to speak about ecology and environment, and if he does, this is kind of preparation for that," he sai

I just heard this on the radio this morning.

The catholic church has got to be the biggest joke EVER.

They say social inequality is a sin, yet everything about them just screams inequality and treating people as unequal anc creating classes. Such as refusing to ordain women, opposing abortions, and opposing birth control and today's technologies that help save lives.

Hey people......looks like we won't have to worry about what types of jokes to find on April Fools Day. The Catholic Church, they are the April Fools.

Everything about them just screams hypocrisy and double speak/double think.

oh well, everyone of us leftists are going to hell.

I'll see you in hell when i die, comrades ;)

[Bright Banana Beard]

what next? internet sin? shoes sin? surgery sin? airplane sin? political sin? the list is endless...

[Bud Struggle]

Which is an utterly reactionary stance to take. Who are the church to decide that paralysed/injured people are to 'accept their fate', when stem cell research can provide a cure? Or that children should have to be born, risking to inherit genetic diseases? Or that human lifespan shouldn't be increased when this becomes a possiblity? The list goes on, but you should get my point by now -- opposition to genetic engineering is anti-human and despicable in the extreme.

I seem to take the opposite view. Any tinkering with human lessens humanity. Any genetically engineered human being nay not be a human being at all. They may be better than a human being. For the longest time (and even now) there were (are) plenty of white people that thought they were better than Blacks. What we need is to decrease the divisions between human beings rather than increase them. I for one side in the way of caution. Remember the Wrath of Kahn? I'm all for increasing lifespans and curing illnesses, but taking life to help life is the anti-human and despicable plan of action. (Here we would get into a discussion of abortion--but this isn't the time or place.)



Obviously not, as long as they can consent. Removing malicious genes which would later on cause diseases or ailments from fetuses should however obviously be done. It's not different from curing the diseases once the genes are activated and cause them, other than in the sense that it guaranteedly won't be too late. Failing to do this, or to otherwise fail to impove the genome of fetuses if the possibility exists is best described as criminal and lunacious. :glare:

Here our boats pass in the night, I have no problem removing malicious genes, etc. The problem is genetically altering some people to be different than what they actually are.




Actually it doesn't have to be similar at all, and you're applying the logical fallacy of Godwin's Law. Don't. ;)

Sorry about breaking Godwin's law. How about the time when the United States infected Black inmates of a mental asylum with Syphilis to see the long term effects on humans? The point is that it MAY not have to be the same as those kinds of thing--but then again, maybe human experimentation could be the norm. And who would be experimented on--the poor. And who would benefit--the rich. And if you don't think that's how it works--you haven't been paying attention.


Nevertheless should it be up to consenting, adult human beings to decide what to do with their own bodies. Much like with abortion.

Drugs ARE consenting. But in the long run they are also for the most part addicting and bad. They're bad in two ways--first it hurts the individual, people loose their joy of life, their will, their happiness. And secondly, it's a drag on society. They drug addicts don't contribute to the benefit of society, they take up societial resources and give little or nothing back. They steal and cause the crime rate to go up. They cause needless suffering for their families and their victims. They may choose their addiction, but those they harm don't choose to be harmed--what about them?


Wait, here they're actually on the right track! :ohmy: Obviously all pollution can't be avoided, but it sure should be minimised to the extent this is possible without decreasing human living standards or preventing the elevation of them. Only the abolition of capitalism could however effectively change the current, ignorant environmental policies -- and that wasn't on the Vatican's 'to do list' last I checked.. OK, we agree on the first part of your statement, but Capitalism has been overthrown on a number of occasions and good solid Communist regimes installed--and how did that turn out in the long run? :D


Sounds good, but I doubt mine and Mr Ratzinger's (or whoever wrote these 'directives') vision of how this is to be prevented are very much alike. What is meant here is likely something along the lines of 'more charity' rather than actually doing anything to shake the foundations of social inequality. :rolleyes:

Actually, you are wrong here. The Church is very interested in changing the foundations of social inequality. Here's some quotes, they aren't "Communist", of course but they do show a real interest in the needs of the poor and the workers of the world:

On Human Work by John-Paul II in 1981

History teaches us that organizations of this type [unions] are an indispensable element in social life, especially in industrialized societies.Catholic social teaching does not see unions as reflecting only a "class"' structure, and even less as engaged in a "class" struggle. They are indeed engaged in the struggle for social justice, but this is a struggle for the common good, and not against others. Its aim is social justice and not the elimination of opponents. (#20)

Yet the workers' rights cannot be doomed to be the mere result of economic systems aimed at maximum profits. The thing that must shape the whole economy is respect for the workers' rights within each country and all through the world's economy. (#17)

But above all we must remember the priority of labor over capital: labor is the cause of production; capital, or the means of production, is its mere instrument or tool. (#12)


Workers not only want fair pay, they also want to share in the responsibility and creativity of the very work process. They want to feel that they are working for themselves -- an awareness that is smothered in a bureaucratic system where they only feel themselves to be "cogs" in a huge machine moved from above. (#13)

The justice of a social and economic system is finally measured by the way in which a person's work is rewarded. According to the principle of the common use of goods, it is through the remuneration for work that in any system most people have access to these goods, both the goods of nature and those manufactured. A just wage is a concrete measure -and in a sense the key one- of the justice of a system. (#19)

Yet the workers' rights cannot be doomed to be the mere result of economic systems aimed at maximum profits. The thing that must shape the whole economy is respect for the workers' rights within each country and all through the world's economy. #17

Work is in the first place "for the worker" and not the worker "for work." Work itself can have greater or lesser objective value, but all work should be judged by the measure of dignity given to the person who carries it out. #6

[Sentinel]

I seem to take the opposite view. Any tinkering with human lessens humanity. Any genetically engineered human being nay not be a human being at all. They may be better than a human being. For the longest time (and even now) there were (are) plenty of white people that thought they were better than Blacks. What we need is to decrease the divisions between human beings rather than increase them. I for one side in the way of caution. Remember the Wrath of Kahn? I'm all for increasing lifespans and curing illnesses, but taking life to help life is the anti-human and despicable plan of action. (Here we would get into a discussion of abortion--but this isn't the time or place.)

Yet the objective fact remains, that it is your position which is based on moral values, ie 'what is natural' as opposite to rational thinking, and that it is the approach which leaves the injured and ill suffering. This is why belief and faith should never be allowed to affect practical decisions.

Yes, genetic engineering and eugenics can be used to create inequality. But they can also be used to create equality, to give all of mankind equal starting positions as opposed to the current tyranny of genes. This is only possible in an egalitarian society, however.

In capitalist society there is indeed a risk that these techniques are used to create a superhuman elite, which is actually one of the reasons why capitalism so urgently must be overthrown -- in the future class divisions will get a whole new meaning!

Because believe me, unless a theocracy is implemented worldwide, genetic engineering is here to stay. And it's just like any technology -- when in the hands of a minority it creates inequality, when in the hands of eveeryone the opposite.


Here our boats pass in the night, I have no problem removing malicious genes, etc. The problem is genetically altering some people to be different than what they actually are.

But surely by removing these genes they are also altered to something they 'actually' aren't? I really can't overall understend this naturality 'logic'. Why isn't surgery to remove cancer a sin? Didn't God put it there?


Sorry about breaking Godwin's law. How about the time when the United States infected Black inmates of a mental asylum with Syphilis to see the long term effects on humans? The point is that it MAY not have to be the same as those kinds of thing--but then again, maybe human experimentation could be the norm. And who would be experimented on--the poor. And who would benefit--the rich. And if you don't think that's how it works--you haven't been paying attention.

Experimentation on sentient humans forcibly, against their will is horrible and should never be done. In the future other options may open up, but atm vivisection should be done on animals. I was replying to the assertion that any genetic altering is similar to the nazis did. If you didn't mean that, then ignore that point.


They're bad in two ways--first it hurts the individual, people loose their joy of life, their will, their happiness.

Which should be entirely up to themselves.


And secondly, it's a drag on society. They drug addicts don't contribute to the benefit of society, they take up societial resources and give little or nothing back. They steal and cause the crime rate to go up. They cause needless suffering for their families and their victims. They may choose their addiction, but those they harm don't choose to be harmed--what about them?


If an individual harms society or other individuals, they should be held responsible. But the society is not to take any 'preventive action' by limiting the bodily autonomy of individuals. Quite a few actually manage to use drugs without getting addicted at all. Moreover, most of the potential harm to society addiction causes is only relevant in the current, capitalist system. Who would need to steal in an abundant society where the basic needs are provided for, for all?


OK, we agree on the first part of your statement, but Capitalism has been overthrown on a number of occasions and good solid Communist regimes installed--and how did that turn out in the long run?

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and obviously disagree with the course of action in the marxist-leninist regimes. However, when my type of revolutionary leftists took power in Spain, it worked excellently until fascists with the backing of Hitler and Mussolini crushed them militarily, thank you for asking.


Here's some quotes, they aren't "Communist", of course but they do show a real interest in the needs of the poor and the workers of the world

Actually they show an interest in maintaining the status quo -- capitalist power -- by aiming to grant workers rights from the above. This, while condemning revolutionary action to transform society from the rule of minority into that of majority, ie to give workers power. Much like all reformist rackets like social democracy etc it just isn't enough. We don't want benevolent rulers, we want equality.

[pusher robot]

Which should be entirely up to themselves.


On all such questions of ostensible self-harm, few, I think, would disagree that the individual should be able to make the choice. But arguing for the right to choose doesn't necessarily imply that all choices are equally good. There is - and should be, I think - a wide gap between duty and virtue, don't you think? To the extent that the church thinks that abusing drugs is a worse choice than not abusing drugs, it seems difficult to argue the contrary. But this is where I think both you and I disagree with the church - while I think it is virtuous to make rational choices, I don't agree there is a duty to do so.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm an anarcho-syndicalist and obviously disagree with the course of action in the marxist-leninist regimes. However, when my type of revolutionary leftists took power in Spain, it worked excellently until fascists with the backing of Hitler and Mussolini crushed them militarily, thank you for asking.

Coming from a true layman's point of view--as I read this forum I'm only begining to understand the differences and complexities of the various strands of Communism.

While I don't agree, I find your views enlightening. If I didn't mention it before--I thank you all very much.

[Sentinel]

While I don't agree, I find your views enlightening. If I didn't mention it before--I thank you all very much.

No worries, I'm happy to help. You should study on anarcho-syndicalism, btw. We are not those average, newspaper selling leftists but your worst nightmare; we come to your business and sell our labor, then organise the workers in a fighting union with the ultimate goal of taking over the means of production. :D

[Bud Struggle]

No worries, I'm happy to help. You should study on anarcho-syndicalism, btw. We are not those average, newspaper selling leftists but your worst nightmare; we come to your business and sell our labor, then organise the workers in a fighting union with the ultimate goal of taking over the means of production. :D

Sounds like fun. I usually cook a bar-b-cue for my workers on the second tuesday of every month. Lots of good food--you are welcome to attend and organize a union then if you'd like. :D