Recent posts by JohnnyBeGood on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Christians are only Christian in church. TRUE Christians don’t go to church, for they believe in Christianity at all times. Therefore Christianity isn’t really a religion, it’s twisted by society.

+

Scientists are Christian, and without them we wouldn’t have the Big Bang theory.

Lol. So Science must only be preformed in Churches eh? Since Scientist are Christian but Christains are only Christians in Church.

Its the common double Standard flaw often seen. When its about the supposed faults the people are exclude from the ChristianTM group, but when its about their achievements they are happily included as the flagship of the ChristiantTM group.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apathy concerning the current string of scandals?

Originally posted by issendorf:

Interesting – I hadn’t heard much of this factor and I’m sure it mattered. However, there are a slew of things the Executive branch could have done better (and I’d be glad to spell them out if you need me to).

Sure feel free. I just have not haired of and can not think about anything reasonable that would have made a substantial difference, except a better safe haven.

Obama liked to say, “Osama is dead and GM is alive and Al Qaida is decimated!!!!!!!!!!!” This was especially true during the Democratic National Convention which happened about a week before Benghazi. Essentially if this was a terrorist attack, his claims during the convention that were televised nationally were premature and his foreign policy would come into question two months before the election. By falsely claiming it was a YouTube video for about two weeks (even though he knew damn well it had nothing to with the video), his administration and his foreign policy wouldn’t be called into question – the blame could be shifted to someone outside of the campaign, thus neutering any counter attack by Romney.

To me that seems a bit much constructed, but then i am not immersed enough in current Americas culture too know if the Benghazi attack being immediately called a terrorist attack could have convinced anyone to change who he voted for. Possible perhaps but I don´t see the attack proving Obamas statements premature(unless you read more into the words than i do) or how it shifts blame from someone within the campaign to someone outside.
I can see how the terrorist attacks could be used to claim that Obamas foreign policy has not lessened the overall hatred and influence of extremist against the USA, but then that could be done even with the spontaneous demonstration background. Hell it could be done even without Benghazi. I just don´t think that Romney could have convinced any significant number of undecided voters that he could do any better.

Edit:

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

The Youtube video also invoked some interesting associations. ‘It is our fault for being mean’ there was a whole lot of ‘respect other religions or reap the whirlwind’ rhetoric flying about as they spammed the video explanation. But that was also predicated upon ‘Muslims are emotional, childish, and require us to control them’ mentality.
It also isolated incitement away from government actions instead to rouge media personnel and the internet.
p

Hmm, interesting. But was it not pretty clear almost from the beginning even when the video explanation was spammed, that there were actual radical extreme islamists involved and not just everyday Muslims.
Though i can at least now see a possible (if from my standpoint totally stupid) Motive both for the Administration to control at least a bit how the information arrived in public and how this imaginable Motive could off-set republicans.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Apathy concerning the current string of scandals?

Originally posted by issendorf:

There were tons of embassy attacks under Bush where 13 Americans died, did their lives mean anything?

Those embassy attacks didn’t involve at best gross incompetence by the executive branch and at worst a coverup for political gain.

I don´t think anyone outside of the anti-obama camp really sees any gross incompetence by the executive branch or a cover-up for political gain concerning Benghazi.

The Death off Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Smith seem more like bad construction planning/work and bad-luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_Consulate

It seems that the amount of security personal was less of an issue, than that the safe-hafen was not built to keep smoke outside for an at least reasonable amount of time.
And that some off the personal could die when the attackers equipment includes not only grenades, automatic weapons and RPGs but even truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns, should not be that surprising.
For a planned attack with that equipment 4 causalities (2 indirectly by smoke) is actually surprisingly low.

The cover up claim is really bewildering to me. But perhaps you can explain to me what the Obama administration had to gain from labeling the attack being done from within a spontaneous demonstration vs. a preplanned terrorist attack without spontaneous demonstrations.
To me it seems that there is absolutely no political gain whatsoever.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:

I do feel enlightened by the fact that you say you wish to include God into science, in fact that means a lot of me. However, you don’t understand that we don’t need to prove God. The bible didn’t fall from the sky, true, but it was made through the word of God through Jesus christ, and the word of God through other people.

Sorry but all evidence points to the bible not only not being the word of god but also not of Jesus, even if he existed. The evidence shows that the People who wrote the NewTestament did not actually know Jesus personally and even their sources were indirect at best. To many inaccuracies, outright lies and logic fails to be much off a quality source.
Even worse is that even if you attribute the these shortcomings of the Bible to the fallibility off the humans used as writing tools and claim the rest is okay; that does not fix the quality of the material. Without magic its impossible to tell which parts are supposedly from god/jesus and which parts are failed.
Now there are many people who claim to have gained that magic. But not only can they not all agree and clearly point out which parts are okay and which are not, it leads to the problem that if such magic is necessary and God even gives out such magic. Then why does God use the Bible as a medium at all. The magic could tell the People directly about Jesus and God.
With the greatest bonus being that People who because they were born in the wrong culture or family, never get to read the Bible could be saved through Jesus too.

And also, let me get one string of fact here. and that is..Jesus being human. If you saw Jesus right now, in front of you, you would not feel anything, because YOU are human.

I rather doubt that most people would feel nothing if some weird Arabian dude suddenly appeared before them(naked or dressed in weird clothes).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:
I have reasons I believe in God. I’ve had things happen to me that are almost impossible to explain and i know for a fact that God the creator is watching the world every second, and i see the people he’s saved and i see the people who aren’t saved.

Problem with this claim is that your not the only who believes that they have had such an special extraordinary Experience. The sad truth is that this goes for many religious and esoteric people. They believe to have experienced things that are sheer unexplainable by science.

Personally i have had such experiences several times with several religions and with several esoteric ways. Sadly for the said religions and esoteric Ways(especially the first ones), the experiences could never shut down my critical thinking enough to really buy into the theology that was supposed to accompany the experiences. I might have become an free Esoteric, if had not noticed when and how the experiences came and how even mundane (aka non-religious, non-esoteric) stuff like Sport or a really great party (or concert) with friends can get you the same level of experience. Today i know i can get such a high experience with sports, meditation or even good night out in the city. Which makes praying kinda rather unsatisfactory.

But as said even excluding my Personal experience the problem with your Argument remains that there are millions of others who have had your type of Experiences and believe they did not get Jesus but Mohammad, Buddha, Osho and/or etc. on the other end of the line.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by beauval:

No, thats sadly not true for all or even the majority of the Masochists visiting such clubs. The percentage of people who can actually enjoy the pain and humiliation they receive at such clubs is really really small even under the masochists who go there. For the majority its mostly compulsive behavior, codependency or a combination of the two.

As someone who dabbles in that area, I can assure you that there is a lot more to it than that.

True indeed. I lacked time and English language skills to adequately cover the complexity.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

No matter the circumstance its always the same.

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. There is no universal truth – just whatever you make up.

I believe our difference here are only slight and mostly semantic. My point being that the universal truth would be that there is no objective good or bad, that good/right or bad/wrong can only be subjective.

The percentage of people who can actually enjoy the pain and humiliation they receive at such clubs is really really small even under the masochists who go there.

So those people are suffering, and that is bad. I don’t see your point.

My point is many of those people would disagree, with their suffering being bad.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

At least thats what XxsamuroxX text implies.

She said the moral law would be impressed onto us, meaning God gave the absolute moral law to humanity. Some people break that moral law, such as Hitler and Mother Theresa.
Yes, they are both pretty nasty human beings.

Then i misunderstood this:

Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:
If the moral law were something we could cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot cast it off. We cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. We cannot escape the moral law any more than we can escape the laws of logic or mathematics.

That might be me misunderstanding her words, but if thats the case the whole argument comes bullshit circular logic. God can be proofed to exist because a universal moral law exists. A universal law can be proofed to exist because God impressed it on humans.

make so that nothing is universally morally wrong or right

That would mean it’s completely relativistic, which is the opposite of a universal moral law.

No it would mean its absolutely not relativistic. No matter the circumstance its always the same. Nothing has an intrinsic value or meaning as such.

human suffering being bad =/= SM clubs

People at SM clubs enjoy the pain, so they are not suffering.

No, thats sadly not true for all or even the majority of the Masochists visiting such clubs. The percentage of people who can actually enjoy the pain and humiliation they receive at such clubs is really really small even under the masochists who go there. For the majority its mostly compulsive behavior, codependency or a combination of the two.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

If Morals are not subject/relative and an inescapable Moral law was impressed on us then Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa must be equally good and evil, because their morality would be one and the same.

How does that even make sense? The universal moral law would make it so there are things that are universally wrong or universally right. It doesn’t make everybody equally good and evil, it just eliminates double standards. The problem is finding out what could be a good universal moral standard – and with science & philosophy, because religion is a shitty source of morality and knowledge.

The context of the words ‘inescapably impressed on’ means that there should be no reason to find out, because everyone would have the morals inescapably impressed on them. At least thats what XxsamuroxX text implies.

Also the pure existence of a universal moral law what not necessarily make it so there are things that are universally morally wrong or right. It could also (and all scientific evidence points in this direction) make so that nothing is universally morally wrong or right.

Next book I’m going to read after The Great Gatsby is “Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong” by Marc D. Hauser, and possibly “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris. We’re building our own morality based on axioms that we simply assume that are true (e.g. human suffering = bad). It has nothing to do with something universal outside the human culture – but it’s still universal in our society. It’s man-made, and it does not prove God exists in any way.

Not really universal even in our society (e.g. human suffering being bad =/= SM clubs).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should the Law have some control over what is done to one's own body?

Originally posted by SupernautUK:

Originally posted by HolyLasagna:

I wonder how abortion hurts anyone, seeing as before the third month there is no possibility of suffering or awareness. Nobody but the parents is emotionally attached to the fetus, and they are the one that need the abortion to happen.

So if I was to find, say, a person who had no family and friends and injected them with a deadly but painless poison while they slept – you would have no moral problem with that?

Technically similar in that at least you would not be causing suffering to anyone. But different in two ways 1. The person already has a will and personality, acting it against that will (without an ethical reason) even if they are momentarily sleeping(or even dead) can be considered unethical.
2. In the described scenario there are no legal interest of yours involved. Factually there isn´t even any interest of yours involved(named) at all. Just for shit generally loses against most other interests especially legally guaranteed ones. While HolyLasagna does not mention any interests explicitly the part about “needing it to happen” actually infers at least some. The fact that a fetus is part of a mothers body is for an example is already one such interest and considering how much suffering a pregnancy can cause the mother a pretty high one.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should the Law have some control over what is done to one's own body?

Originally posted by dd790:

I am all for people doing whatever they want to their bodies, until they expect the NHS to pick up the tab.

Self inflicted health problems (issues from smoking, drinking, drugs, eating till you can’t walk etc) shouldn’t be covered by the NHS, and normally people with serious problems caused by these things tend to have difficulty doing/finding/keeping a job, thus don’t pay taxes and maybe even get support money. I dislike that my wage goes to paying for the NHS to try and help people who chose to be ill, A&E and helping people who didn’t choose to become ill with my tax money is fine, I will expect the favour back should I fall ill, but all the self inflicted illnesses are destroying the NHS and forcing up the health budget, and thus taxes and other cuts to cover the costs

1. The problem the NHS and many of worlds health programs have are less self inflicted illnesses and more the rising ability to keep people alive longer. Sadly this increasing ability comes with increasing costs. Societies that value life and the prolonging of life (at least of its own people) it is hard to say no to using the increasing abilities and thus paying the increasing costs.

2. Not covering self-inflicted health problems has several problems. The first one is clearly defining which issues count. Thats a lot harder than your above list makes it out. Because the place where the lines are drawn will become a legal battlefield. The great problem being that most of the issues only have a certain likelihood of causing various health problems. For example the percentage of smokers that get Lung Cancer are higher than the average, but not all people that smoke will get lung cancer and not all people that don´t smoke never get lung cancer. Basically even leaving the house (or even staying at home or going to work) can be considered a self inflicted health risk, since depending on the action taken it increases the likelihood of getting ill.
The chance problem also leads to the second problem. Clearly discerning if an illness was actually caused by a chosen action. For example the cancer of a smoker might not actually be caused by smoking, but something else. Providing clear evidence is commonly beyond medicines current ability.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by XxsamuroxX:

Another way to reject Lewis’s argument is to deny the first premise. If there is no universal moral law, then there is nothing that needs to be explained. Perhaps, the critic might claim, we have these moral intuitions, but they are all false illusions of a law that doesn’t really exist. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot cast it off. We cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. We cannot escape the moral law any more than we can escape the laws of logic or mathematics. Denying the universal moral law would ultimately lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa).

This last bit is really great proof for the none existence of a Universal Moral Law. And shows how much the Author fails at logic. If Morals are not subject/relative and an inescapable Moral law was impressed on us then Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa must be equally good and evil, because their morality would be one and the same. Only if at least one of them can escape the universal moral law can there be any difference. So the shit about inescapable is bullshit or the universal Moral Law must in fact not exist.

And while its true that the objective fact that morals are subjective/relative to the moral holder does mean that Hitler and Mother Theressa are objectively equally good and evil(since neither good or evil objectively exists or to put in lay man terms the universe does not give a damn shit on anything), this only renders moral actions/statements meaningless from an objective standpoint.
Humans not living their lives according to this objective standpoint is no wonder as Humans are subjective creatures.
Proven especially by the fact that you would call Mother Theresa a Saint. While I only see her (the death angel of Kolkatta) as a lesser evil to Hitler because of the lesser number of Victims who suffered and died because of her.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Which is basically what we do with “based upon a true story” films. Start with inspiration from real-life events – like a handful of charismatic cult leaders of different cults back in the day – and embellish their deeds then combine them into a single figure.

I disagree that the starting point where real life events of a handful a charismatic cult leaders. Look at the stories of Jesus deeds, almost none of them are close to anything a real person would have actually said or done. Its more like writing a fictional character(Dr. Who, Spider-man and etc.) and then adding in real life sites and historical people.
Hell, many of the supposed events of Jesus life are based/inspired by earlier fictional stories(For example the story about King Herod having children killed to stop a prophecy).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

There is no evidence that proves that the Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible was a real Person, even if you exclude the wonders and religious claims.

Chances are, he was actually three or four (or five or six) real people, each of whom acted as the inspiration for the tales penned about him. In the same manner as today we create films ‘based on a true story’, so the larger-than-life character of Jesus would have been assembled at least in part, from actual events.

While i agree that there is a good chance that real people might have been used as sources of inspiration, I must disagree with the part about it being “In the same manner that we create films based on true Stories”. Most of the People and Events depicted are to far removed to call it based upon, its more like making up a fantasy story and then putting the frame work in a realistic background setting(by adding in historical places and people).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Does God exists? and why?

Originally posted by EPR89:

And who the hell disputes Jesus’ birth?

Well i do. There is no evidence that proves that the Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible was a real Person, even if you exclude the wonders and religious claims.
But thats quite different than thecartm’s standpoint since its actually based on recorded history instead of denying it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Kermit Gosnell

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

You might have heard about the “story that isn’t front page news, but should be”, which ironically, is beginning to sweep the news. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion Dr. who is on trial now for some supposedly horrific offenses, among them (beyond) late term abortion:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/why-dr-kermit-gosnells-trial-should-be-a-front-page-story/274944/

What are your feelings on this issue, particularly as it relates to abortion in general? Do you think this is criminal and unacceptable, or just an abortion Dr. who took things a little too far? What are your feelings on very late term abortion; is there a point (before delivery) at which viability makes it akin to manslaughter? Do you think better oversight by the Pennsylvania Department of Health could have prevented any of the incidents alleged in the article?

It shows quite clearly that there are women so desperate for abortion that they will not only have them even if they are illegal, but that they will also risk their very lives in the process(will at least the poor ones, the rich have better options available than of the type of Kermit Gosnell).
This is also not a case of an abortion Dr. taking some political agenda or individual philosophical world-view to far. Its a Doctor/Clinic that was unable to manage operating a business/life. Keeping hygienic standards is a basic economic necessity for almost any business. A business that drops to far below the average standard of its type of industry tends to lose costumers(especially those that can afford to go elsewhere) it will in general fail or become a gathering point of those who can´t afford to go elsewhere and are desperate enough to come despite the bad hygienic standards. Sometimes such failing businesses start supplying illegal services too keep the influx of desperate customers steady.
This is such a case. The bad hygiene made normal customers look elsewhere, the Clinic then turned to supplying the desperate with illegal abortions to keep in business.

Better oversight by the Pennsylvania Department of Health could certainly have prevented some of the alleged incidents. But its unlikely that much better oversight by the Pennsylvania Department of Health would have been possible. Good or even adequate government management is not exactly a strong point of American culture.

To late term Abortions, i don´t think there is a time before delivery which makes it akin to manslaughter. The only restriction i see is on how its done. If the way its done does exactly the same amount of physical and emotional damage to the women as a premature-birth, which generally means if the baby is totally and wholly removed from the body women before being killed, then at that point it makes no sense to kill it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / AX: Nuclear war wouldn't end the human race

1. Just like a nuclear War is unlikely to result in the extinction of the human Species, so are overpopulation and global warming.

Population growth is commonly expected to stop at 10 Billion at least until further progress regarding long lifespans is made. Even if overpopulation is actually reached that will just mean people dying of famine and some wars over resources which just reduce the population back to a sustainable level.
Global Warming might become a bit more of a problem. Especially since it will keep growing warmer for a long time even if the pollution causing the growth in warmth is stooped. But human ingenuity will still allow some of humanity to survive, even if this will have to be done in enclosed biodomes. Plants and animals will adapt to the climate changes as long as they don´t happen at a much much faster pace.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by issendorf:

The point is not why someone would want service from a bigot or racist, but why should someone be denied service if they are not breaking the law or causing a disturbance, there should be reasonable grounds for denial of service…it’s not illegal to be gay so the florists opinion and personal view should not be considered reasonable grounds.

But it is illegal to force the florist to associate with the gay wedding, a point you conveniently ignored. Again, there’s a difference between not selling a dozen roses to someone simply because they are gay and not wanting their product associated with a gay wedding.

But I can see no reason why this florist can’t do their job and provide the service they offer to the community…they have no grounds to deny a non-religious service to a gay couple.

They actually do have legal grounds – Boy Scouts V. Dale would probably be their best bet, but there are others as well that I can provide you if you are interested.

Sigh. Ignored because its wrong. The right of free association covers the right to choose which groups one belongs to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

The florist is not being asked to join or be part of a group/association, but provide a Service/Product.

Originally posted by issendorf:

Legal Action that will always give the florist the ability to not provide the service but at a significant price.

Should the florist really have to pay a king’s ransom in order to exercise what she sees is morally right? In my mind, the answer is no.

If its illegal (which it clearly is), the answer is clearly yes.

History has shown that these laws are nessary, because a free market is very often not capable of dealing with the problem. The targets are often minorities with almost no market power.

Absolutely these laws were necessary historically. However, we aren’t living historically. We’re living in 2013. Would homosexuals, blacks, asians, latinos, interracial couples have a difficult time procuring goods and services today in the United States? I’m thinking, by and large, the answer is no.

Wrong line of thinking. It does not matter if you can buy it on e-bay or amozon. That does not justify or make an excuse. The laws are there to protect the individual from discrimination. Which is the case, becuase it generally means a drawback howerver minor for the person in qeuation. The laws apply equally to all.

But the laws are quite clear and for good reason.

Virtually every law is created for a ‘good reason.’ That doesn’t mean there are unintended consequences and a lot of times, a law or regulation does more harm than good.

I don´t see any harm done. An asshole is getting his just due, an legal asskicking.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:<

But they are not threatining violence but legal action. Legal Action that will always give the florist the ability to not provide the service but at a significant price.

Legal action exists soley under the threat of violence. If he were to non comply, things would escalate until forceful seizure of his property or person, rendered with as little, but ultimately as much as well, violence as necessary.

If you want to open that can of worms, i will pont out that any contract formed is a legal action. And contract are always fromed when someone buys or sells something. Add in all the other laws and regualtions and your basically saying everyone isconstantly threatning everyone else with violence.
Its a brainless argument to make. Especially since the person in question actually applied to have violence constantly threatened upon him the moment he applied to run a buisness.

The Laws that limit the rights to refuse exist for good and many reasons. You will find similar laws in almost any Country with a market economy in the world. History has shown that these laws are nessary, because a free market is very often not capable of dealing with the problem. The targets are often minorities with almost no market power.

Outside of US segregation do you have any case examples? The market will be a function of the society, which, depending on place or time will hopefully remain enlightened. Nevertheless, I am against this legislation as an imposition upon the merchant.

I was not talking about the US segregation specifically. As said almost all countries with market economy have such laws. In fact I don´t know a country that does not.
It usually hapens when someone becomes unwanted in a community. The Person is harresed by denying the person services and goods. The market fails to counter this, since the target has as said little to no market power. In some cases the market can actually become the motor of this since, it can be used to ruin a persons buisness.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Have to say I am with Issendorf. The Free Market should be more then capable of dealing with fringe, market restrictive choices – as opposed to having the government mandate a universal customer base. This isn’t a violence, this is the refusal to render a service. I can’t justify obligating society to furnish me their wares under threat of violence.

But they are not threatining violence but legal action. Legal Action that will always give the florist the ability to not provide the service but at a significant price.
The Laws that limit the rights to refuse exist for good and many reasons. You will find similar laws in almost any Country with a market economy in the world. History has shown that these laws are nessary, because a free market is very often not capable of dealing with the problem. The targets are often minorities with almost no market power.
Now in this case the market might or might not be able to deal with it(I personally doubt the claims that this will lead to the florist going out of buisness or sufering any kind of economic damage through the market, to many bigots, don´t care´s and non-informed people for that to happen, see chick-fil-a) and the suit might be petty as Karma puts it(i don´t know enough to judge that).
But the laws are quite clear and for good reason.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can Communism Work?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

It’s funny how communism has never been achieved, and each time a starry-eyed, iron-fisted dictator tries again, they FAIL.

Not surprising, since true communism and dictatorship are mutually incompatible. It would have to be an extremely democratic nation that moves to communism, for any attempt to be remotely successful.

Even then, you still have to account for the primitive areas of the human mind. Its not going to be easy, to say the least, to empower every individual, and account for those individual citizens who do not wish to be empowered into a position of control of things.

How do you give power to those who don’t wish it, and if you cannot, how do you account for their apathy in terms of the general vote? How do you educate the citizens sufficiently for them to care about every issue, and how do you administrate such an inherently massive beaurocracy in anything close to an efficient rate?

Well they don´t really need a vote in everything a Representative democracy would be okay, too. I see the problems more in trying to achieve a classless society as well as establishing an uncorrupted judicature and executive.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Can Communism Work?

Originally posted by PatriotSaint:

It’s funny how communism has never been achieved, and each time a starry-eyed, iron-fisted dictator tries again, they FAIL.

Cuba comes as close to being full-communist as any country comes close to being full-capitalist. Hell depending on the definition most countries are a little bit communist(certain industries being state owned).

The problem is there is no clear definition of communism, because it has been used to label different economic, political and social policies.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by issendorf:

The problem is that marriages it is now always offers beneficial/preferential treatment that can not be had with a normal civil contract.
Also Marriage together with Adoption(and some other laws) are institutionalized restrictions on the freedom of people to decided for themselves who are part of their family. And any other law but especially restrictions should generally have good arguments behind them for their existence. So even if Marriage is not considered a civil right, its certainly a human right as is equal treatment before the law.

We don’t disagree. Get rid of the lavish benefits. If you’re going to have the benefits, then offer them to all unions of two consenting adults.

I think we do because i don´t see how its possible to get rid of all the benefits(and your labeling of “lavish” makes me suspect that your thinking primarily or even exclusively about money benefits and not all the others).

Since i do “Charity” work as living and have studied social work, i know that much of their status as a charitable institution is unwarranted. In many countries they are more in the business of money and influence milking than actual charity, the money coming from Governments and other Institutions with the Church just putting their stamp on it. Even in the countries where they do pay a significant portion out of their own pocket, their goals are regularly not charity at first place but missioning(spreading their own beliefs and influence).

I really don’t see the issue if their charitable outreach coincides with missionary work.

I see it as an an issue because money received for the intention of charity is often used for missionary work instead. That is already bad when it just donation givers thinking they are giving money to help help fund charity, but it becomes a real issue when its the money of tax and insurance payers.
And beyond just missioning their faith with money given with a other intent they commonly use their handhold over the social-business sector as bludgeon. To influence politics and public opinion.

I bit be a bit over critical because of my own experiences with the “charity” work of the Catholic Church and how they use it more as political/financial instrument in my country and some of those i worked in than an actual charity. But personally anyone claiming they do much actual charity just makes me want to throw up.

The Catholic Church is the single, largest charitable organization in the US. If that isn’t an entity that does charity, I guess no entity does.
If you want to get hung up on the percentage of the budget that goes to charity (which you seem to be), fine, but I think that’s a bit shortsighted. They run hospitals, universities, schools, and dioceses. They are a massive organization – not something that is only a charity. In terms of the raw dollars, they do more than any organization (again, I’m only speaking in the US – I’ll confess I’m not terribly knowledgeable on their practices abroad).

You mean perhaps the largest non-government. And i am not saying they don´t do charity, but I see no reason why the tax except status should be extended to the parts that don´t do charity and considering the business practices of the church i dot see why anyone should have any respect for the church being the largest NGO that does “charity”.
3 of the things you mentioned: schools, universities and hospitals is a great example where they turn water into wine(the fourth thing is just an organisational label). The percentage of non-taxpayer, non-insurance or non-client(parents/patients) money spent on such things will rarely be above 10% in many cases the church will actual make money of such institution. The church acts more as an capitalistic investor in the field of social business than an actual charity organisation.
A great example of this is mother Teresa and her order. Less than 8% of the charity donations given to the order where actually used on the charity operations. Even though hundreds of millions where donated the hospices where poorly out fitted and staffed with low-paid and low-educated nuns. To top it off mother Teresa believed in pain and suffering being the connection to god and this reflected on the medical treatment off the poor souls that had the misfortune to find themself in her orders “care”. At the same time her and her orders “charity” work was turned into a great boost in public opinion. She is still believed to be an extraordinarily example of selfless charity person by many people world wide.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by issendorf:

And are you just arguing that the federal government should not regulate marriage or that no government should. The first makes practically no difference to the other posters on this thread, because federal, state or county the laws governing marriage should not exclude gays.

Just the feds. Historically in this country, the states have regulated marriage the best way they see fit (age restrictions, for example). In terms of federal issues, I’d like a union to involve two consenting adults – whatever gender the two are, I don’t especially care. Likewise, I would like a lot of the lavish tax benefits that married people get to be trimmed back if not downright eliminated.

If a state wants to say marriage is between one man and one woman, I don’t especially care. I’m one of the few posters on this thread that doesn’t view marriage as a civil right and as long as married people aren’t given preferential treatment in a state that doesn’t allow gay marriage, I don’t think there is a huge problem. I understand that people who view marriage as a civil right are going to fundamentally disagree with my position, which is fine.

The problem is that marriages it is now always offers beneficial/preferential treatment that can not be had with a normal civil contract.
Also Marriage together with Adoption(and some other laws) are institutionalized restrictions on the freedom of people to decided for themselves who are part of their family. And any other law but especially restrictions should generally have good arguments behind them for their existence. So even if Marriage is not considered a civil right, its certainly a human right as is equal treatment before the law.

Especially the catholic church you yourself brought up is a good example how extending the tax-exception(and other special rules depending on the country) of an organisation that does some Charity beyond the parts that actually do charity work(or which the special rules are actually intended).

“Some” is a bit of an understatement for how much they really do globally. There are a lot of things you can be critical of with the Catholic Church – living up to their status as a charitable institution isn’t one of them.

Since i do “Charity” work as living and have studied social work, i know that much of their status as a charitable institution is unwarranted. In many countries they are more in the business of money and influence milking than actual charity, the money coming from Governments and other Institutions with the Church just putting their stamp on it. Even in the countries where they do pay a significant portion out of their own pocket, their goals are regularly not charity at first place but missioning(spreading their own beliefs and influence).
I bit be a bit over critical because of my own experiences with the “charity” work of the Catholic Church and how they use it more as political/financial instrument in my country and some of those i worked in than an actual charity. But personally anyone claiming they do much actual charity just makes me want to throw up.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by issendorf:

Or they stop marrying people all together as a legal power. Something they should never have been able to do in the first place.

Which is more or less what I’ve argued in this entire thread: that the feds shouldn’t regulate marriage.

He was talking about the churches not the federal government. And are you just arguing that the federal government should not regulate marriage or that no government should. The first makes practically no difference to the other posters on this thread, because federal, state or county the laws governing marriage should not exclude gays.

When everyone else gets charged? and you still use all the same government services? Yeah, yeah I think that is exactly like being given money.

They are hardly the only ones who don’t pay taxes.

But they do so big time. Especially the catholic church you yourself brought up is a good example how extending the tax-exception(and other special rules depending on the country) of an organisation that does some Charity beyond the parts that actually do charity work(or which the special rules are actually intended).

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by issendorf:

I don’t understand how a religion can insinuate that gay marriage interferes with their ability to practice their beliefs when they’re particularly enforcing a single religious view on others who may also be religious but do not believe their God admonishes their sexuality.

It’s more a concern that if a church doesn’t recognize same sex marriages and the courts rule that marriage is a civil right, then religious institutions will more or less be forced to comply with same sex marriages even if it goes against the moral teachings of the religious institution.

But its plain bullshit. Religious institutions can and already do refuse to marry people for shit load of reasons, for example cohabitation before marriage, being previously divorced, or the spouses being of different religions. Hell even interracial marriages can be refused.