"God told me to do it"

Captain Trips

MrJoeSoap wrote:

I have my own opinions thanks. I don't know many socialist nations that are jammed full of millionaires in fairness. While capitalism certainly doesn't work, I'd hazard a wild guess that plenty of people (not necessarily including myself) are happy under it. Just ask any of the citizens of the former Soviet Union how happy they were under it.

Soviet Union was communist. Christ almighty.

Socialism is what we have in Europe TODAY. It is what gives healthcare, education and reduced poverty compared to the capitalist entities like US and UK which having soaring poverty rates (now just under 1 in 5 are below poverty line in UK).

Removing grip of privately controlled industry on essential public need is capitalism. Hence, eg.., Eircom was privatised, it's more expensive than ever, and the government can only but slap a 5000 fine for not unbundling local loop, etc., .

If you are happy with communism/capitalism (regardless of the credit rating, both create the society of small amount of very walthy and powerful, large amount of poor, like America, UK, China, ex-USSR countries).

I believe EUrope has evolved beyond both primitive greed (like UK or US) or totalitarian greed (CHina and what was USSR).

Socialism is alive, and is epitomised by the European social model.

The Corinthian

MrJoeSoap wrote:

There are more sides to the argument than you may care to recognise.

There’s actually no point to responding to wiseones2cents. As tempting as it may be to correct him on his factual errors, dubious sources and flawed reasoning it actually gains you nothing.

Consider that his principle tenet is based upon the premise that what he considers to be true is simply common sense. It should not have to be explained - we should innately understand and agree with him. If not the problem is with us. There’s a term for this type of behaviour, but I’d prefer not to open up that particular can of worms.

Curiously, he holds anecdotal evidence as highly valid. Of course when other people’s anecdotal evidence contradicts his, he assumes that they must be unduly influenced and thus wrong. It never occurs to him that the reverse may also be true.

Upon this basic premise he uses two general forms of reasoning. The first is of fantastic correlation - that is to say, he will observe a similarity between two things and come to the conclusion that there must be a causal link between them. His belief that Roman law is ultimately derived from biblical law is, in part, an example of this. Both share similarities vis-a-vi murder, theft, etc, and thus must be related in his view. That an actual link cannot be demonstrated is irrelevant - he can show a link of influence through to Egypt, but after that becomes fuzzy and simply considers the final evidence to be a mere formality.

The second basis of his reasoning is religious, in that he considers the Bible to be an absolute truth. Not only spiritually and morally, but apparently historically too. Unfortunately the bible is at best an unreliable historical source. Undoubtedly much of it is ground in historical fact, but unfortunately much of it is most likely embellished at best. For example, his claims that King David’s empire “ruled the heart of known civilization” is perfectly valid if you take as fact what is written in the Bible. Unfortunately there’s practically no evidence of him even existing. Of course he may well have existed, but if so it would be very difficult for him to have both “ruled the heart of known civilization” and left so little archaeological evidence.

It’s also possible he considers the Bible as an acceptable scientific text, but in fairness I don’t think he’s made any such claim here.

In conclusion, I’m going to bow out of this debate. He will, no doubt, feel vindicated. Good for him. The alternative would be argumentatively going round in circles ad infinatum and ad nausium, because ultimately no matter what evidence or logic we may bring to bare, we will never be able to override his unshakable conviction that he is right, simply because he must be right.

So it’s been fun, but life really is too short.

wiseones2cents

Captain Trips wrote:

Socialism failed? ****! And there I was looking at the socialised models of industry and health, education across Europe this morning...what a waste of time that was!!!

It failed in a sense that it is being corruptted by Capitalist greed from within. If you keep reading you will see I am Pro Socialist. In my sense of the word Socialist.I am anti-Capitalist.

I believe socialism to be the best system but Imperialist capitalism must be destroyed. Only they wont go down without a fight. But when they run out of money and credit and lose support of its people, it will sink like a boulder.

MrJoeSoap

Captain Trips wrote:

Soviet Union was communist. Christ almighty.

So what does the abbreviation 'USSR' stand for? Communism is a branch of socialism, although it is by no means representative of socialism as a whole.

wiseones2cents

Captain Trips wrote:

Soviet Union was communist. Christ almighty.

Socialism is what we have in Europe TODAY. It is what gives healthcare, education and reduced poverty compared to the capitalist entities like US and UK which having soaring poverty rates (now just under 1 in 5 are below poverty line in UK).

Removing grip of privately controlled industry on essential public need is capitalism. Hence, eg.., Eircom was privatised, it's more expensive than ever, and the government can only but slap a 5000 fine for not unbundling local loop, etc., .

If you are happy with communism/capitalism (regardless of the credit rating, both create the society of small amount of very walthy and powerful, large amount of poor, like America, UK, China, ex-USSR countries).

I believe Europe has evolved beyond both primitive greed (like UK or US) or totalitarian greed (CHina and what was USSR).

Socialism is alive, and is epitomised by the European social model.

I am in total agreeance with you. Read all my posts. But I like to Elaborate. Socialism was an Etopia created by British and French economists. They Believed the System to be so good, Capitalism would soon die off without confrontation. Little did they know that the Capitalists were willing to kill its competition to hold on to power and wouldn't give it up without a fight.

Thats why America has waged war in Iraq. It needs Iraqi oil to pay its increasing Defeciet.

Anyways. Marx countered with violence. Forced Socialism. Which later became Communism. To counter the spread of Capitalist greed.

Therefore communism only came about because of aggressive Capitalism.

So Capitalism must be destroyed for Socialism to flourish.

wiseones2cents

The Corinthian wrote:

There’s actually no point to responding to wiseones2cents. As tempting as it may be to correct him on his factual errors, dubious sources and flawed reasoning it actually gains you nothing.

Consider that his principle tenet is based upon the premise that what he considers to be true is simply common sense. It should not have to be explained - we should innately understand and agree with him. If not the problem is with us. There’s a term for this type of behaviour, but I’d prefer not to open up that particular can of worms.

Curiously, he holds anecdotal evidence as highly valid. Of course when other people’s anecdotal evidence contradicts his, he assumes that they must be unduly influenced and thus wrong. It never occurs to him that the reverse may also be true.

Upon this basic premise he uses two general forms of reasoning. The first is of fantastic correlation - that is to say, he will observe a similarity between two things and come to the conclusion that there must be a causal link between them. His belief that Roman law is ultimately derived from biblical law is, in part, an example of this. Both share similarities vis-a-vi murder, theft, etc, and thus must be related in his view. That an actual link cannot be demonstrated is irrelevant - he can show a link of influence through to Egypt, but after that becomes fuzzy and simply considers the final evidence to be a mere formality.

The second basis of his reasoning is religious, in that he considers the Bible to be an absolute truth. Not only spiritually and morally, but apparently historically too. Unfortunately the bible is at best an unreliable historical source. Undoubtedly much of it is ground in historical fact, but unfortunately much of it is most likely embellished at best. For example, his claims that King David’s empire “ruled the heart of known civilization” is perfectly valid if you take as fact what is written in the Bible. Unfortunately there’s practically no evidence of him even existing. Of course he may well have existed, but if so it would be very difficult for him to have both “ruled the heart of known civilization” and left so little archaeological evidence.

It’s also possible he considers the Bible as an acceptable scientific text, but in fairness I don’t think he’s made any such claim here.

In conclusion, I’m going to bow out of this debate. He will, no doubt, feel vindicated. Good for him. The alternative would be argumentatively going round in circles ad infinatum and ad nausium, because ultimately no matter what evidence or logic we may bring to bare, we will never be able to override his unshakable conviction that he is right, simply because he must be right.

So it’s been fun, but life really is too short.

I'm glad you finally gave up. You were clearly beaten.

As far as Your claim that the Bible is Embelished? It might be true. But that can be said about Any Historical text or reference. Even today if you look up the Histroy of wars, the versions differ slightly in every single country.

Doesn't mean that the Bible does not hold accurate history. Especially when that history is backed up with more text and sources.

Oh and your claims about King David?I found this on the net.
http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn005/gn005f02.htm

Also You must Remember Many Major Historical Libraries were burnt down to the Ground. In Asia, Alexandria and Pergamum.

P.S. I am not here to win debates. Only to share thoughts. Debating is a great way to see things from different views and find truth. If I find that view Acceptable? I accept it. If I do not? I stand by my beliefs that are heavily researched.

MrJoeSoap

wiseones2cents wrote:

I'm glad you finally gave up. You were clearly beaten...

P.S. I am not here to win debates.

As an impartial observer, your style of "debating" leaves a lot to be desired.

The purpose of an argument is not to win or lose, but to arrive at Truth. - Don't think this particular statement can be applied to this scenario.

wiseones2cents

MrJoeSoap wrote:

As an impartial observer, your style of "debating" leaves a lot to be desired.

Yes. I'm still working on the rough edges. What did you find Undesirable?
My conduct or my sources? It is easier to refine them when I know what I do that is undesirable.

I was on a very aggressive American political board for a few years and picked up many bad habits.

MrJoeSoap

Just things like...

As far as China being Aethiest?Nonsense.

When China is officially an atheist nation. There are a number of minority religions, but arguing that China being Atheist is "nonsense" seems quite strong (even overly so) to me.

Also, things like:

Try to stay on the ball.

Sure you are(Note Sarcasm).

You have no morals. Therefore your opinion is worthless.

your kind

and

I have been proven correct in the past and will be proven correct in the future.

may be viewed by some people as overly cocky and arrogant, especially when the arguments you provide clearly aren't convincing people who had previously disagreed. There are some spelling and punctuation problems too, but I'm not here to be pedantic, I realise sometimes these things cannot be helped. Sometimes, however, simple things like mis-spelling a word or capitalising a word incorrectly can throw be people off. Hey wait, I am starting to be a pedant! I'll stop now.

wiseones2cents

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Just things like...

When China is officially an atheist nation. There are a number of minority religions, but arguing that China being Atheist is "nonsense" seems quite strong (even overly so) to me.

Well I as under the impression that Buddhists believed in a Supreme Being.
If they do not, than Yes that would make China an aethiest nation because they do not believe in GOD but in gods.

As far as the sarcasm and debating intimidation tactics? He also did the same. When in Rome do as the Romans. He actually accused me of having a mental illness.

As far as him having no morals comment? We were discussing problems like poverty, coruption and criminal violence which he described as people just living their lives? As if it was acceptable and normal behaviour in a morally run society.


I have calculated many future occurences which have come true. And have calculated more that will become eventualities. That is all I meant.

Yes I admit I may be cocky and arrogant(Bad traits I picked up on the net).
But I know what I am talking about. If you disagree, you can back your position. Were here to debate are we not?

As far as my spelling mistakes or grammer? I type very fast with two fingers and my time is limited so I dont check for errors. It is not the spelling errors that matter but the context of what is written.But you have a point with the capital letters. I sometimes put capital letters where they shouldn't be.

Anyways I'd like to thank you for taking the time to point out some undesirable debating traits I have picked up. I will try to keep the cockyness and arrogance(picked up on an American board, go figure)down. And try not to put capital letters where they shouldn't be.

MrJoeSoap

wiseones2cents wrote:

Well I as under the impression that Buddhists believed in a Supreme Being.
If they do not, than Yes that would make China an aethiest nation because they do not believe in GOD but in gods.

Only 8% of China is Buddhist. They are officially atheist.

wiseones2cents

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Only 8% of China is Buddhist. They are officially atheist.

Like I said. MOST of my statements are heavily researched. In this particular case I always assumed China to have a large Buddhist population.

Well I did some looking up here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

And found this.

Buddhists 8%, with more than 200,000 monks and nuns. This value is seen as extremely low because the more than 16,000 Buddhist temples do not maintain traditional congregations.

{My comment}Therefore suggests this figure is inaccurate.Not to mention as stated the massive reconstruction programs that were implimented in 1990 to restore Buddhist temples. As I recall hearing, many are still small Shrines today where people visit individually, light a candle or incense say a prayer and leave.
How can they monitor Buddhist populations?

Taoists, unknown as a percentage, there are more than 25,000 Taoist monks and nuns at more than 1,500 temples. Taoist belief is often intertwined with both Buddhism and traditional folk religions.

Muslims, 1.4%, with more than 45,000 Imams. Other estimates are much higher.

Protestant Christians, 1.5% with official churches. It is estimated another 2.5% of the population is a Protestant Christian worshipping through an unofficial house church.

Catholic Christians, 0.8% with official churches, and the Vatican claims another 1.2% are Catholics that attend Catholic services at underground churches.

Also I have seen higher figures in ALL these fields. Especially in the Christian field since much is underground worshipping due to persecution.

There is also an Estimated 70 to 100 Million Falun Gung worshippers. which is a mix between Chrsitianity, Taoism and Buddhism.

But You were right. China's religious background seems to have suffered setbacks by the Communists. But as you will see, Religion is spreading like wild fire in China. The Chinese leaders can embrace it, or get burned by it.

It would certainly encourage Construction developement(Jobs) and a way to get money from wealthier Chinese citizens to help develop poorer China.And they would give the money willingly.

If there is an economic collapse, Chinese leaders better hope they are on the good side of the people. If there is an Uprising it will be even worse.

China already killed 10 protesters last week for complaining they were under paid for their Land that was ceased by the Chinese government. I have still yet to hear a peep out of any one condemning this disgraceful act by the Chinese.

Captain Trips

wiseones2cents wrote:

Therefore communism only came about because of aggressive Capitalism.

So Capitalism must be destroyed for Socialism to flourish.

Interesting. I am of the opinion that communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. I think this because of the end result: a small ruling group, large poverty and no useful public services.

NOw, one has a good credit rating, and the other doesn't, but the natural order of both is to have a feudal style system. The capital one needs to wage much more war to keep that credit. However, IMHO, the end result of society is very similar and so based off of different philosophies, I think they are essentially the same.

So, I think socialism is the balance. It's a natural levelling of society that reduces poverty and disease, but also reduces stupifying differences in wealth (like UK, US, and communist countries).

My own opinion is never to look at the process first and then the description of the result. Look at the result first. If the resulting disparate society and unequal wealth distribution exists, the system is the same (regardless of a so-called face off between capitalism and communism - they are the same in the end).

wiseones2cents

Captain Trips wrote:

Interesting. I am of the opinion that communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. I think this because of the end result: a small ruling group, large poverty and no useful public services.

Actually you are right to a certain degree. Right now what is happening in America is not capitalism but totalitarianism. There are monopolies being formed under different corporations but all run by the same people. So that their is the illusion of competition. Their are mergers and aggressive takeovers happening. Which is completely wiping out all smaller competition. So basically they have cornered the markets. This is all illegal in a capitalist system. These big corporations also no longer pay taxes which is also Illegal in a capitalist system.

Though their totalitarianism does not stop at it's borders. It is spreading on an international level. They are taking over. Along with the other elites they have world wide. And their intention is not for the best interest of the earth but it is in THIER best interest.

NOw, one has a good credit rating, and the other doesn't, but the natural order of both is to have a feudal style system. The capital one needs to wage much more war to keep that credit. However, IMHO, the end result of society is very similar and so based off of different philosophies, I think they are essentially the same.

So, I think socialism is the balance. It's a natural levelling of society that reduces poverty and disease, but also reduces stupifying differences in wealth (like UK, US, and communist countries).

My own opinion is never to look at the process first and then the description of the result. Look at the result first. If the resulting disparate society and unequal wealth distribution exists, the system is the same (regardless of a so-called face off between capitalism and communism - they are the same in the end).

Communism is a result of Capitalist aggression. So yes it was formed to counter Capitalism. Therefore the feuding is between each other.

They were not the same in the old day. They were actually opposing forces.
They end results are the same though. They each want to hold on to and increasing thier power. That is what its all about.

What I find odd is that communism suppressed religion. Did it see it as a threat or were religions also behind the capitalist push?

Exactly.Socialism is the best because it brings balance and equality on an economical level.

Captain Trips

wiseones2cents wrote:

What I find odd is that communism suppressed religion. Did it see it as a threat or were religions also behind the capitalist push?

I suppose that people can only be forced along certain paths if they have nothing else that could guide them or direct them elseways. Religion is dangerous as it could lead to a splinter from the unshakable belief in the communist system.

Is the "banning" of using the word Christmas and the religious significance a similar event? It occurs in the ultra-capitalist countries and even Conan O'Brien as joking about it a few days ago. Again, a different system, but the end result is that religion is minimised and put down.

wiseones2cents

Captain Trips wrote:

I suppose that people can only be forced along certain paths if they have nothing else that could guide them or direct them elseways. Religion is dangerous as it could lead to a splinter from the unshakable belief in the communist system.

Is the "banning" of using the word Christmas and the religious significance a similar event? It occurs in the ultra-capitalist countries and even Conan O'Brien as joking about it a few days ago. Again, a different system, but the end result is that religion is minimised and put down.

Thats what happens when you mix different religious people. Now 1% of the population is trying to tell Americans what to call Christmas? Absurd.
Now who should move if they dont like it? The 1% or the 99%? hmmmmmm:D

But most countries would let in satan himself if he offered them enough money.

I was going to comment further but that would be going off topic.