see more Fail Blog
I am wondering what marketing demographics are they targeting? Is this racist or for teachers? Anyway, if you want to see how government controlled school system, socialized health care system, and just Socialism in general is going to look like in the future just take a look. The communist indoctrination of our youth has begun.
3 words
ReplyDeleteScraping ... the ... barrel
Hyperbole much?
ReplyDeleteso... you just label anything you disagree with as "socialism?"
ReplyDeleteI remember an episode of All In The Family where some swingers came over to the house for Mike and Gloria, and when Archie got into an argument with them and they referred to themselves as "swingers," Archie said, "Ooohhh! Is that what they're calling it these days?!"
ReplyDeleteAnd they asked Archie what HE called it.
He answered, "Communism!"
Dan, you are just like Archie Bunker.
Everybody:
ReplyDeleteYou just have to realize the correct grouping. (This is socialism) = (FAIL). It is a failure to assert that any of that bears any relation to socialism.
Nice twist Pvb I should change it yet again to Socialism = Fail, you know for witty people like you.
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteThe original wording was better, as it could actually be construed as relevant and accurate. That is no more representative of socialism than it is of christianity.
oops...
ReplyDelete2 free w/12. 14×89.2 = 12.49
got it.
"When tyranny comes to America, it will be carrying a cross and wrapped in a flag."
ReplyDeleteOK, I really don't get it.
ReplyDeleteWhat do condoms have to do with communism?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteWhen did Jesus say anything about socialism and capitalism?
Rufus:
ReplyDeleteWhen Jesus overturned the moneychangers' tables, he was making a statement against capitalism. When he fed the masses, he was making a statement in favor of communism. When he pronounced the beatitudes, he was making a statement in favor of socialism. When he said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," he was making a statement in favor of taxation without representation. When he raised Lazarus, the child at Nain, and the daughter of the synagogue 'ruler,' he was making a statement in favor of a universal healthcare system. When he turned water into high quality wine, he was making a statement in favor of drinking to excess. When he befriended a prostitute, he was making a statement in favor of promiscuity.
...
--
Stan
The Bible: The communist indoctrination has begun:
ReplyDeleteActs 2,44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
And God'll strike you down if you don't share too:
Acts 5,1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
This "God" fellow is a commie!
This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat
(Ex. 16:16-18)
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYou are such the spin doctor.
When Jesus overturned the moneychangers' tables, he may have been making a statement against communism/socialism.
Remember where the moneychangers' tables were? They were in the place of worship, the Temple, the government at one time.
You cannot server two masters.
When he fed the masses, he was possibly making a statement in favor of trusting Christ, or charity at the very least...
Oh and the crack about being in favor of drinking to excess. Remember that the wine was new wine. In other words grape juice, the beverage of choice back then, NOT fermented wine. There is a difference (Luke 5:39) Jesus Juice is non alcoholic.
When I befriended an Atheist, am I making a statement in favor of damnation? Thanks, you confirmed my James 4:4 remark with the prostitute comment.
Yeah, Dan, but when, and where, did Jesus ever say anything about socialism or capitalism?
ReplyDeleteDid He need to for you Rufus?
ReplyDeleteBetter question: What's your point?
He's your saviour, you follow him. You seem to write about a lot of stuff that he apparently didn't think was important. To quote the Psycho Burton, IT'S ALL ABOUT JESUS, isn't it? You wrote about the Tea Party "tax protests". What did Jesus say about taxes?
ReplyDeleteDan, what exactly does "socialism" mean to you? How does a sign advertising condoms represent socialism? I have the sneaking suspicion that you equate capitalism with Christianity, and socialism with atheism. However, as Stan and Gorth point out, Jesus would most likely disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteLike many other buzzwords, "capitalism" and "socialism" have become banners claiming to represent eternal truths, when they are merely directions along a spectrum of how we try to balance the needs of society with the desires of individuals in order to build culture. But it's a dance, not a truth; and we are learning as we go along. There is no self-evident "right" balance: culture is something new, geologically speaking; and we must see where our choices have led us, and let that determine how we vote.
When Jesus overturned the moneychangers' tables, he may have been making a statement against communism/socialism.
ReplyDeleteRemember where the moneychangers' tables were? They were in the place of worship, the Temple, the government at one time.
I'm spin-doctoring?
The government was Roman. The Jews had a puppet government, true, but it was powerless. Who are you trying to kid, here?
Moneychanging is a decidedly capitalist venture -- especially when done in culturally inappropriate areas, specifically for profit.
You may dismiss my intentionally silly example if you like, but to attempt to spin it to suggest that Jesus was making a statement against socialism/communism is a bald-faced lie.
When he fed the masses, he was possibly making a statement in favor of trusting Christ, or charity at the very least...
That's better -- closer to simple dismissal -- but technically, any vendors seeking to profit off of the throngs following Jesus were put off by the provision of free food. Thus, free enterprise was willfully stifled.
Remember that the wine was new wine. In other words grape juice, the beverage of choice back then, NOT fermented wine. There is a difference (Luke 5:39) Jesus Juice is non alcoholic.
Care to revise your statement, sir? I'm well aware that there is a difference between old wine and new wine, but you're evidently quite oblivious to Jesus' first alleged miracle (or should I say, "miricle"). Read it again, junior.
From John 2:10:
[The master of the banquet said,] "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
Thank you, though, for confirming through your unwitting ignorance that a) old (fermented) wine is better per Luke 5:39, and b) that Jesus clearly contributed directly to excessive drinking by providing the best wine "after the guests have had too much to drink."
You were saying?
--
Stan
Still waiting, Dan: what is socialism?
ReplyDeleteZilch,
ReplyDeleteI did answer that in a past post, that linked to a good article about it.
I am still stuck on the math of the picture.
ReplyDeleteWhat is .2 cents anyway in 89.2 cents?
If there are 2 free then the cost per is $1.04 You cannot price in two free otherwise it is not free.
Walgreen's Math = Fail
There I feel better.
I am still stuck on the math of the picture.
ReplyDeleteThat is not surprising...
It's the total price per unit, that's all, and if you think you're really getting anything free you're dumber than I thought. I suppose when you get two items via "buy one, get one free," you proclaim to Patti that the first one cost $X, but the other was free, right?
It's marketing, which is an attempt at gleaning maximum profit, which is only possible when an item's value is inflated, which is in turn only possible when the item's production is undervalued, which is part and parcel of capitalism.
--
Stan
???
ReplyDeleteI read your "good link," but I wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy...
That's a high school paper, worthy of perhaps a C+, but nothing more.
It's sophomoric.
Here are a few choice quotes:
Socialism is commonly defined as the state owning all things.
That's misleading as hell. Socialism is actually "commonly defined" as collective ownership/control of production or distribution. The "common" definition this guy provides applies equally well to good old fashioned feudalism, which is hardly associated with the common connotation of socialism.
[W]hereas socialism is one group benefitng [sic] others, in capitalism it is multiple groups benefiting each other.
Really? I understood capitalism to be every group benefiting itself...
[T]he difference between capitalism and communism is that not every group has the same goods.
There you have it... That's the difference.
Nature is socialism.
What?!
Nature is one thing that provides for every need of mankind.
Like disease, predators, famine, volcanoes... It seems "every need of mankind" isn't all that nature offers... But hey, "Nature is socialism."
Communism... is... the very basis of every religion known to man.
I'm pretty sure that's a pure fabrication, even if we accept this guy's definition of communism. I suppose, though, we should consider thanking this guy for not attempting to argue this absurd assertion, rather than complaining...
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, is the very premise of communism.
Heh. I guess that settles things regarding Jesus' socio-political leanings, eh?
[The benefits of capitalism span everything from] The computer that I use, the clothes I am wearing, to the house I am living in. I did not need to learn carpentry to live in my house, or learn to sew to make my clothes, or understand electronics to make my computer. I am benefited with all of this simply because capitalism works.
Yep. Without capitalism, no houses, no clothes, and no computers.
Wait... what?
[S]o long as we stay true to the principles of humanism ("commune-ism") we can truly live in a peaceful world.
Like I said, at best a C+ for a high school term paper, c. 10th grade.
Worse, this paper is being heralded by Dan as reflecting his own views, and worse still, Dan thinks it's "good."
[Nature is] The only totalitarian system that works.
Huh? I thought Nature was socialism? Does this mean that socialism is totalitarianism? I'm confused.
And then we will have our utopia, without the need of kings or dictators, flags or institutions, oppression or exclusion, fear or tyranny.
That really doesn't sound like Dan's version of liberty and capitalism, but he's the one who cited it... I guess you're more pinko than I thought, comrade.
I will say, though, that insofar as that article is awfully written, and seems to have no bearing whatsoever on either Zilch's question of Dan, or Dan's socio-political stance as described to date, its author nonetheless seems to mean well. My take is that the author sees exploitation, and wishes to see it replaced by humanitarianism, but is afraid of the labels "socialist," or "communist," and is instead enamored with the label, "capitalist." His poorly written article seems to endorse an anarcho-communist utopia with private ownership but regulated commerce, but given his inability to successfully articulate it exactly, this is really a guess.
ReplyDeleteAs to Dan's link to his own comment in a previous post, it doesn't answer Zilch's question, but talks about Dan's equivalence of socialism with communism, with a contradictory statement regarding private ownership, and a link to the "good article" fairly ridiculed above.
Sorry to jump in here, Z, but when I read that article, I had to share my experience just to preserve my sanity.
--
Stan
Stan- after reading the article Dan linked to, I agree. I suspect, given the confusion between what "filosophia" thinks capitalism, socialism, and communism "really" mean and what they "should" mean, that the author himself doesn't have a clear idea of what he is trying to say.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, he makes no attempt to show how his definitions apply to the real world. And that's what I meant, Dan, when I asked you the meaning of socialism: what exactly does socialism entail in real human societies, and are there any such societies? And finally: please tell me what socialism, however you define it, has to do with condoms. Thank you.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteMy original thoughts about the condom/socialism title was that since the government is controlling our education and, soon to be, health care this add fit right into that.
They will possibly be doing mandatory "recommendations" for certain subjects. Like China, wear your condoms to avoid the mandatory abortions, for crowd control and things like that. I just cannot stand the thought of government forcing itself into our liberties.
Incidentally after Stan's comments I read the whole article since I only skimmed it before. I guess I trusted the website more then the contents of the article. Oops. I must admit that I do enjoy being caught in my intellectual laziness though. It helps me focus in more on what I believe. For that I thank all of you.
Socialism is advocating state ownership, instead of personal ownership, of an industry. That the "one" will supply the need for "many" instead of advocating individual responsibilities and celebrating individual achievements. Plus it promotes egalitarianism at its core. Now I am a fan of Biblical egalitarianism all under the dictatorship of our God, Christ. Even the Bible promote the individual talents that each member of the Body has. (1 Corinthians 12) But that is entirely different then human egalitarianism since humans are entirely corruptible and evil at their core. They take advantage of the system to benefit the individual. Do you understand how much corruption is in Medicare? The fraud in our current system of Medicare today is around 3-8%, (some claim as high as 20% compare that to fraud of credit cards where fraud effects the bottom line of profits. Credit card fraud is around .03% of the industry. Do you see the motivation to keep that at such a low number? Do you see the benefit of ownership?
Plus it just isn't fair. Do you believe I should earn the same amount of a brain surgeon?
They sacrificed time and life to dedicate him or herself to that field. I sat and ate Fritos in front of my computer and played Portal. To earn the same wadges seems completely unfair, if I were the surgeon that is.
Again I am completely OK with the Biblical concept of leadership as we are all equally wicked and need a Savior to guide us to righteousness. To lead the way to good, away from evil. Socialism would work if their was no possible way of corruption, as in Heaven, but that just is not the case on this planet. God would be fair, man will never be.
They will possibly be doing mandatory "recommendations" for certain subjects. Like China, wear your condoms to avoid the mandatory abortions, for crowd control and things like that. I just cannot stand the thought of government forcing itself into our liberties.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the assertion regarding "mandatory 'recommendations' " is nothing short of reactionary fear-mongering. There are now and will continue to be mandatory actions, as there are now and will continue to be voluntary recommendations.
The assertion regarding mandatory abortions in China is untrue, as the occurrence of mandatory abortions is officially against policy. This does not mean it doesn't take place, but it does mean that making claims of its occurrence are impossible to verify, at least as pertaining to officially being mandated.
Of course, at some point, which point China evidently feels has been surpassed, population control must be realized, to the tune of restricting the "right" to procreate. I've argued before that this "right" is really a responsibility, and the minimal requirements for procreation we enjoy in the U.S. (namely, functioning genitalia and a willing partner) are inadequate -- prospective parents should first be required to demonstrate that they are emotionally, financially, and intellectually stable before they are allowed to raise children. You know, they should be subject to the same criteria applied toward adoptive parents and/or foster parents.
In any case, saying that you "cannot stand the thought of government forcing itself into our liberties" is nonsense. You seem to have no problem with the government restricting various liberties for various groups, and only seem to complain when the restriction directly affects you, or your sensibilities. You have no problem whatsoever with general government restriction, nor with general restrictions on a country's sovereignty, yet when you perceive a threat to the "liberties" you value, you wail and moan as though you're some threatened alley cat.
The problem is that you seem to believe that certain actions are "rights," or "liberties," and are therefore immune to restriction of any kind, yet you are quite satisfied with restrictions against the same class of actions in other cases -- indeed, you actively pursue these restrictions -- which is blatant hypocrisy. Likewise, you are oblivious to the simple fact that unregulated procreation -- implied or explicit -- will necessarily lead to overpopulation and famine, which will naturally be corrected via war and plague. At some point, even you must admit that you do not have an unmitigated "right" to pop out as many children as you want, and you owe it to future children to admit that not every functional cock and snatch are qualified to conceive.
[A]fter Stan's comments I read the whole article since I only skimmed it before. I guess I trusted the website more then the contents of the article.
Yes, Dan, we're well aware that you have a tendency to uncritically accept arguments which you perceive to be supportive, without having read or understood the very source you cite.
I must admit that I do enjoy being caught in my intellectual laziness though.
No, you don't. You are embarrassed at your idiocy, and you sheepishly offer some bullshit excuse to hastily cover your ineptitude. The only way you can argue that you enjoy it is by noting how you still don't correct your behavior, despite being called on it so goddamned many times.
Critically read any potential source, especially before offering an endorsement.
I am not that much of a tard.
Yes, you are.
It helps me focus in more on what I believe.
Evidently, it doesn't help you do much of anything, since you constantly do it despite the many reproaches you've faced.
Socialism is advocating state ownership, instead of personal ownership, of an industry.
ReplyDeleteSo you don't like the Post Office, or the FDIC, or the military, etc. Got it.
Plus it promotes egalitarianism at its core.
And what's wrong with egalitarianism?
[Humans] take advantage of the system to benefit the individual.
You mean like in a capitalist society?
Do you believe I should earn the same amount of a brain surgeon?
Are we still talking about socialism, because if we are, this is not necessarily what would result. Even if it were, it is entirely possible that surgeons and [Dans] may enjoy much of the same benefits of society, without the need for accumulating wealth or enduring the separation of 'class.'
They [sic] sacrificed time and life to dedicate him or herself to that field.
Not if education is socialized. If it is, then the surgeon actually owes society for the free schooling he received, the repayment of which can be viewed as part of the leveling of incomes -- even though such a leveling is unnecessary in a simple socialism.
I sat and ate Fritos in front of my computer and played Portal.
The cake is a lie.
To earn the same wadges [sic] seems completely unfair, if I were the surgeon that is.
If it doesn't seem unfair from your non-surgeon perspective, as you've presented your argument, at least, then you are being dishonest.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of positive reinforcement in the form of additional material goods, or incentives, to pursue certain needed functions in society -- just remember here that society needs [Dans*] just as badly as it needs surgeons -- but what society doesn't need is an ever-widening income gap, and it doesn't need any billionaires.
There should be a national salary cap, and there should be regulations which require businesses to prove they comply, or at least be susceptible to audit and/or fine, and any business which wishes to conduct operations inside the U.S. -- including merely selling its goods -- should be required to comply as well. All proceeds beyond the salary cap, minus some amount for maintenance, expansion, and/or R&D, should be tax revenue, to be redistributed to pay for societal needs.
If nothing else, any productive member of society -- that is, anyone who produces as he is capable, within the needs of society -- qualifies to reap the benefits of society, including food, shelter, education, healthcare, and basic amenities. Anything beyond these basic provisions is earned based on one's skillset and one's application of that skillset relative to the society's needs.
Ugh... I didn't expect to write so much on this, especially since the thread is somewhat stagnant...
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteIt does, indeed, seem unfair from my non-surgeon perspective. Doesn't it for you? Obviously not. I was trying to show you how unfair, from that perspective, it would feel. I am sure there are plenty of people, like yourself, that feel their hands should be filled every time they stick it out, but that isn't fair at all. Remember what the Bible says about teaching a man to fish instead of just giving him fish? The sense of self will erode away with your promoted system. Yet again you are wrong!
"...and it doesn't need any billionaires. There should be a national salary cap" ??????
Dude! That entire rant almost made me barf.
I am sure you believe that Steve Wozniak aka "The Woz" Co-founder, Apple Computer Inc shouldn't be rewarded monetarily for his genius. I am sure you don't believe anyone should try hard to better themselves. Why even do well in school in a socialized system? You promote a commonality in income. You promote failures.
The system you promote will not encourage people to challenge themselves. There is a night and day difference between socialism and capitalism. One is very unfair, but evidently we disagree as to which one that is. You do understand what pressure on a piece of coal makes right? It makes a diamond. People reach deep into themselves to create great things when challenged. Force is not challenging people.
At the very least, I "remained resolute and resourceful in an environment of extreme pessimism."
I am sure there are plenty of people, like yourself, that feel their hands should be filled every time they stick it out, but that isn't fair at all.
ReplyDeleteLearn to read. Your straw man isn't remotely what I had said.
Remember what the Bible says about teaching a man to fish instead of just giving him fish?
You're retarded. Have you even read the bible? That piece of wisdom isn't found in the bible at all -- it's a Chinese proverb -- and anyway, Jesus violated it pretty well when he handed out fish to 5,000 people, or do you think each fish was wrapped in instructions as to how one could capture, prepare, and cook a fish of one's own?
Dude! That entire rant almost made me barf.
Why? Because you can't think things through? Because you don't understand that in order for one man to profit, another must suffer a loss? Because you don't understand that unregulated amassing of wealth necessarily requires an equivalent amount of poverty -- except that while the wealth is focused on an individual, the poverty is spread across an extremely large group?
Pay attention and do the math -- several times, in your case, until the answer you get works both ways, and you can reproduce your results: unregulated wealth is wholly unnecessary, and beyond a certain point any additional income should absolutely be surrendered as tax revenue and/or provided to charity.
Anyway, since you clearly don't read your own fucking bible, try guessing what Jesus would suggest to the filthy rich...
I am sure you don't believe anyone should try hard to better themselves.
No, that's your position. After all, we're all worthless sinners destined for hell, right? In your view, self-improvement is impossible. In mine, we endeavor to improve ourselves for the sake of our peers. Your love of money reminds me of something I read somewhere...
Why even do well in school in a socialized system?
To better oneself, one's community, and one's world. Hell, to bring glory to one's god, if you believe in that sort of thing. What more incentive do you need?
You promote a commonality in income.
No, I promote an end to excess, and a relative equanimity with regard to basic necessities. I promote philanthropy, empathy, charity, etc.
You promote failures.
You exhibit the root of all evil.
You know what? Fuck it. If you really think that we have to have money to be satisfied in life, then you're a worthless cunt. Seriously. Get over yourself, and your apparent greed. Most people are born into situations where the opportunity to become wealthy is unreachable. It is an established fact that those born into lower class homes tend to remain in the lower class throughout their lives -- this, in the capitalist United States -- yet you seem somehow to believe the "rags to riches" bullshit that is the "American Dream."
Rather than selfishly seeking to benefit only yourself and your immediate family, with no apparent consideration for the welfare of others, and rather than worshiping at the altar of the almighty dollar, why don't you pull your head out of your ass and instead appreciate the fact that not everybody has the same set of opportunities, and maybe -- just maybe -- we can see to it that those opportunities really are realized for everyone.
I say that one way to do it is to compel the wealthy to relieve the lower classes, through heavy taxation -- complete taxation, beyond an established level. Your Jesus seems to agree, except he's a bit more radical even than I am.
You, on the other hand, are evidently perfectly content with aiding and abetting the root of all evil.
Normally, you don't get under my skin too much, but your blatant lack of concern for others (perhaps enhanced by your false attribution of an old proverb to your own bible) has really pissed me off here.
If you really are the uncaring super-capitalist you sound like, then go fuck yourself.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI was wrong about the fishing verses. I guess I injected my own understanding into Matthew 4:19.
OK as far as the shellacking that you gave me about money, you're right but only to a degree. The love of money is the root of all evil and money will never make anyone happy, I agree. But a system that you are promoting that is designed to take, or force, you to be charitable, will never work. We are to bee free in giving to the less fortunate but how charitable can I be if let's say 50% of my income is taken away from me. You're right that there is a certain level that excessive money is unnecessary.
Now think back when Jesus said to give all your money away to the rich man "and went away grieved: for he had great possessions." (Mark 10:17-25) Did Jesus just take the man's money and say it is for your own good? Nope, it was the man's choice. You are forcing good which is not good at all. If you were to rape woman to spread your, believed superior, seed you would be wrong. Socialism is like rape. It does not promote charity it promotes selfishness. You have a weird view of Jesus, its all about our choices and liberty to do so. Socialism takes away that.
BTW it is the Atheistic worldview that is less charitable. So instead of socialism we need to eradicate atheism to promote more charitable people. (
Atheism and Uncharitableness
Have a wonderful day
Slam debunked.
I guess I injected my own understanding into [every bible passage I've ever read].
ReplyDeleteLike that's something new...
OK as far as the shellacking that you gave me about money, you're right but only to a degree.
And here I thought there was "right" and "wrong," and no in-between...
The love of money is the root of all evil and money will never make anyone happy, I agree.
Excellent. Then you also agree that capitalism is the one socio-economic system which promotes the love of money beyond all others, and as such it should be vilified, as Jesus would undoubtedly agree.
I accept your apology.
But a system that you are promoting that is designed to take, or force, you to be charitable, will never work.
You misunderstand me, intentionally or unwittingly I cannot tell. The system I promote would involve heavy taxes, yes, to fund many social programs, yes, but if you view this as being charitable, then you do not understand the term 'charity.'
In the system I propose, persons who wish to give what excess they have would be encouraged to do so -- they are free to be charitable -- even though they would also be heavily taxed to ensure that all persons are provided with basic human needs -- they are required to be humanitarian. I see no reason why we cannot legislate humanitarianism while leaving people free to be charitable, so your false dichotomy fails.
[H]ow charitable can I be if let's say 50% of my income is taken away from me.
What a stupid question. Read your damned bible for a change and get back to me.
You're right that there is a certain level that excessive money is unnecessary.
Thank you for admitting that a national salary cap is a good idea. I accept your apology.
You are forcing good which is not good at all.
What is it, then? Is it bad?
If I require my daughter to go to a nursing home and interact with the half-dead patrons, cheering them and generally bringing joy to their nearly-over lives, is that bad?
If I prohibit my son from insulting the neighbor kid, and require that he apologize and seek forgiveness if a problem arises, am I forcing good? Is that bad?
Socialism is like rape. It does not promote charity it promotes selfishness.
You're high. Socialism is not like rape, even if you associate rape with the forced promotion of superior DNA.
For one, we're not talking about forcing socialism on anyone -- the U.S. holds free elections, last I checked, and if the people vote for more socialized industry, then they get more socialized industry. It's not being forced on anyone any more than dealing with a winning opposition (as in an election) is being forced on anyone.
For two, capitalism promotes selfishness, and you're a liar if you deny this. Capitalism is all about selfishness -- what's the "American Dream"? I don't think it has anything to do with helping your neighbors live better lives...
You have a weird view of Jesus...
What, like taking him seriously? "Love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't mean capitalism, friend, it means socialism, if not outright communism. It means provide for your neighbor, not profit off of him. Perhaps you've forgotten, though, that this statement of Jesus wasn't a "choice" or "liberty," but it was the second greatest commandment.
Seriously, Dan, for a professing Christian, you sure don't seem to know dick about your bible.
--
Stan
Now that I've got around to replying to Dan, I see that Stan has already done so. Not much I can add to that, except to say that one of the most mind-bending accomplishments of fundamental Christianity is making a capitalist out of Jesus. I guess that was necessary so that the televangelists could keep their private jets.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as equating capitalism with freedom goes, I'll just say this: there's freedom and there's freedom. Sure, in general, more capitalism means lower taxes (at least for the rich), and that's a kind of freedom: the freedom to get stinking rich. But more capitalism also means less public oversight and control, and history has shown us what that gives us: sweat shops, toxic waste, environmental destruction, and wars for oil. In my eyes, these are all things that impinge upon my freedom, and that of my kids, to live happily and at peace. When it comes down to it, we have to decide which kinds of freedom are more important.
There is no system of government which has the "right" balance of socialism and capitalism: it's not written in stone, because human culture is new. But the current balance in the USA is destroying the world. And I'm willing to pay a fair amount of what I earn to preserve the world, and I don't think it's too much to expect that everyone else do the same.
Unfortunately, charity alone won't cut it- anarchy doesn't work. Thus, we need a certain agreed-upon amount of government, and government means socialism.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteFirst, Christianity is not a governmental system by any stretch of the imagination. So by you injecting things that Jesus said to do is somehow equal to a governmental system or a government's intentions and motivations is laughable. Christianity is not Capitalism or Communism, it is our Salvation from death.
To say it another way. A system of Government is not the heart of Christianity, Salvation is the heart of Christianity.
I am going to borrow some definitions for our discussion.
I view capitalism as "a laissez-faire economic system, characterized by the separation of economy and state, "anti-socialism", free markets, free trade, relatively light taxation, and a minimum of government interference in commerce."
You view capitalism as "a pseudo-religion of greed, characterized by pursuit of self-interest, often associated with the claim that each individual, by advancing his own self-interest, ultimately advances the good of society."
If we are discussing government then I am a proponent of Capitalism, if we are discussing personal views then I am a Christian. They are not mutually the same.
Is your bible the Communist Manifesto?
Hopefully you understand that after Communism is instituted, the system becomes Totalitarian, resulting in greater oppression of the people it was designed to "serve." This fact is well documented throughout the history of Communist nations. You are in complete denial of history if you disagree.
That is why I said with a dictatorship of God then yes it would work because of the righteousness of God. Men, after all, are intrinsically evil and need only an opportunity to express this inherent reality. A Communist nation feeds this evil, as history shows.
To take my money to help the common good is one thing, taking my money to preform federally funded abortions is wrong on so many levels. Governments have no moral compass without God. You are just wrong. We can agree to disagree.
I still love you Stan (and Zilch), even though you are completely wrong.
First, Christianity is not a governmental system by any stretch of the imagination.
ReplyDeleteThank you for admitting that America's government could not have been founded on Christianity, then, since by your admission here, that would be a category error.
Also, thank you for explicitly contradicting yourself, since you have claimed numerous times in the past that the theocracy of the OT and the predicted theocracy of post-apocalyptic humanity (whether in heaven or on a restored earth) are the ultimate foundations and goals of Christianity.
A government is a form of social hierarchy, as is Christianity. Remember the body of Christ? El Dani is the brain, you're the taint, right...?
That's a hierarchy. It's social. It's equivalent to a government. It even has "taxes" in the form of a 10% tithe, which is strictly enforced in some churches.
So by you injecting things that Jesus said to do is somehow equal to a governmental system or a government's intentions and motivations is laughable.
First, my initial examples were intentionally absurd, yet you quite seriously suggested that Jesus "may have been making a statement against communism/socialism" when he overturned the moneychangers' tables, since, as you ignorantly claimed, the temple represented the government. Since the government was Roman, and the temple Jewish, this is impossible, even if we ignore the laughable claim that stopping moneychangers is showing support for capitalism...
Second, I'm not saying Jesus' actions or statements are equal to a governmental system, but that they offer support and/or criticism of socio-economic systems. Capitalism isn't a government type, it's an economic model.
Third, you're the one who is unfamiliar with Jesus' statements and actions. Remember when you said, "Jesus Juice is non alcoholic"? Remember when you attributed the proverb regarding teaching a man to fish to Jesus? Remember when you thought the second greatest commandment was optional?
If you can be dead wrong on so many of the statements and actions by your religion's most celebrated individual in its own collection of stories, I can only imagine how wrong you are on everything else...
If we are discussing government then I am a proponent of Capitalism, if we are discussing personal views then I am a Christian.
ReplyDeleteConfusing economic model with government again, I see, even after defining it for yourself, and erecting a straw man to (mis)represent my position.
If your personal views are that of a Christian, yet your preferred economic model is capitalism, then you defy both the economic model required of OT Hebrews, and the socio-economic model clearly espoused by Jesus, if you believe the synoptics contain his actual statements.
They are not mutually the same.
No, and they're not mutually compatible, either. Enter cognitive dissonance.
Is your bible the Communist Manifesto?
No, that's opium.
This fact is well documented throughout the history of Communist nations. You are in complete denial of history if you disagree.
Right. "Throughout the history" -- what, eighty years? You are completely twisting history to make such a statement. The "Communist nations" we have witnessed to date have had only the title in common with actual communism, and you know it. Actual communism has not been attempted in the modern era (though it was undoubtedly commonplace among early human civilizations), but current socialist nations are quite close -- and they seem to be doing just fine, thank you.
To take my money to help the common good is one thing, taking my money to preform federally funded abortions is wrong on so many levels.
So itemize your deductions, and ensure that each dollar you pay in taxes goes to a tax-deductible organization or cause of your choosing. If that's too much work, you may also have the IRS provide you with a statement of exactly how each dollar you pay in taxes is spent, and require the government to only spend your tax dollars on programs with which you do agree.
Or, of course, you could do as Jesus recommended, and be free from any obligation to pay taxes whatsoever...
...but Jesus wasn't a big fan of capitalism, was he?
--
Stan
condoms are probably the best protection against sexually transmitted infections after abstinence (however abstinence is not practical.)
ReplyDeleteAbstinence is not practical?
ReplyDeleteFor who? Actually it is quite the opposite. It is more practical to abstain and not catch diseases and prevent the baggage brought in a relationship with multiple partners.
When you honor God's plan the beautiful thing is that's the only person you know. There is no comparisons or disease or jealousy that is often associated with prior partners. No man will be surprised someday with a new addition to the family, or so I have heard.
The most important thing is that no fornicator will ever get to Heaven (1 Corinthians 6:9)...without Christ that is. That it is a slap in the face of God and His plan for humanity. No wonder there are so many diseases. If every single human followed the plan there would be zero sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Being a rebel isn't what its all cracked up to be in the grand scheme of things...submit you sinner.
Abstinece is not practical for a married couple.........
ReplyDelete