Forum Poll (2/21/09): God Omnipotency

Quote :

Fourth: Ideas that stop the people from fighting for their freedom and progress.

You know that these ideas alone won't stop a dedicated group of people from fighting oppression, right? I'm a poet. Occasionally. I respect other people and the basic dignity that is afforded them because of the fact that they are human. I don't think that the idea that humans are inherently good (opposite of inherently bad) will make people forgive another person. I think that you're taking my ideas way too far.

I think that you envision a world where anyone can do anything and use religion like a shield to hide behind once they've done something wrong. I.e. I killed a person, but I deserve forgiveness because I believe in God. No. You're taking it to an extreme that I would never endorse. What I'm saying is that it is better to have the *ability* or possibility for forgiveness rather than saying that people ought to automatically forgive.

No one should necessarily get automatic forgiveness, but I would rather that a person has the possibility of such. You have to forgive at some point in your life. If you don't, then that just eats away at you (not you specifically but you in the general, all-encompassing sense). I'm also saying, however, that religion is one of the biggest sources of this idea of possible forgiveness and possible redemption. One does not need religion to come to the conclusion to forgive, but it certainly helps.

OHH WTH, I missclicked go back and lost my whole post...

I don't feel like retyping it, so I'll just say this:

This is getting boring and repetitive, why?
Because you Should know more about the general communist stand against religion.
Very shortened: It makes you weaker because you think "Everything is good, and no matter what happens, even if I do nothing good with my life and don't try to become better, I'll still go to Heaven, so it's all good.".
Basically, it's an illusion that stops you from fighting for progress and freedom.

Are you trolling? You posses troll like characteristics. If you are sir, you just trolled the fuck out of me because I wasted a lot of time writing that with nothing coming from you. All you've done again is restate your position, reworded a little without any back up. Again, if you were in Canada, or even the states and this was an argumentative essay or something of the sort, you would fail.

Rofl, Jay.

P.S.: I already said I got bored of this poll.

Oh, I just realised, "he" isn't capitalised

Or perhaps YOU should try to explain your idea of what communism means. Marx's ideas are interesting and they describe certain parts of human nature, but he EPICLY fails at certain aspects of the human condition. The joke about Marx is that he was basically in a library writing his Communist Manifesto and missed out on so much about the world.

Face it, man. Marx was somewhat delusional. I'll attempt to find the quote from one of his literary criticism articles later on so you can see that I'm not just bull-shitting you.

See that? That's a fucking English Major for you. He doesn't fail his essays. He actually BACKS SHIT UP. Interesting idea now isn't it?

Quote :

Or perhaps YOU should try to explain your idea of what communism means. Marx's ideas are interesting and they describe certain parts of human nature, but he EPICLY fails at certain aspects of the human condition. The joke about Marx is that he was basically in a library writing his Communist Manifesto and missed out on so much about the world.

Face it, man. Marx was somewhat delusional. I'll attempt to find the quote from one of his literary criticism articles later on so you can see that I'm not just bull-shitting you.

Last post on this thread:

WTH ROFL X 5.

Marx spent part of his life in England, he saw the disasters that capitalism caused (The outrageous work conditions of the proletarian), so don't go around saying random things, Aqua.

Communism will never work, even if you take corruption out of the picture government mandate would have to replace local supply and demand to control how many of the population were doing what jobs to give the nation some semblance of allocative and productive efficiency. A government mandate of that type would be oppressive and eventually would be rejected by the oppressed proletariat. We've been over that.

Edit: In fact if we revolved to communism, it would be a return to feudalism. Except instead of Kings and Lords you'd have Presidents and Prime Ministers telling you what to produce, and then taking it all from you for the good of the nation (kingdom). I mean the similarities are striking, except the Kings and Lords of communism would inflict a much heavier tax on their subjects. Of course communism would assert itself under the guise of helping the common man. But we all know how well that worked out once they gave up their power to the government in Russia.
(Back on corruption instead of mechanics again, sorry, but it fails on both fronts though so don't worry)

Jay can lay down an argument but all you seem to do is quote some left-wing lunatic's website every time you're challenged. Quit buying what they're selling you and stop trying to be a rebel for rebellion's sake comrade.

While we're on the subject of philosophy though, it is physically impossible for Aqua to do anything random. That includes saying random things.

I can't find the source that I wanted to in my Norton Anthology of literary criticism, but that is partly because I do not have enough time to read through all of that dry meh text right now. I checked wikipedia a bit, and I know that's not the best source, but at least it's something.

According to wikipedia, Marx moved to London in 1849. Over the next 8 years (until 1857) he worked in the Library of London and eventually accumulated over 800 pages of notes.

In some of the stuff that I did find, I'll share what I can.

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production... draws all, eve the most barbarian nations into civilization."
-Here, Marx is saying that the economic influence of capitalism (i.e. the bourgeoisie) is spreading to all nations and forcing them into something of a common bond system of economy. At some point, I'm almost certain that he writes this is causing countries to pay more homage and respect to capital than those same people are paying to even their home countries. He is writing this before the most gruesome acts of nationalism occur (World War II).

Now, let's take those two facts together.
1. Marx spent nearly 8 years in a library writing up notes.
2. He is completely wrong about the people abandoning their countries for capital.

He was out of touch with how humans act. Just look at his "communist manifesto" if you need more proof of that. He essentially said that capitalism would eventually destroy itself due to the class struggles. When this happened, Marx hypothesized that a new economic system (namely communism) would appear to replace the old because there would no longer be classes.

Has that happened? No.

Will that happen? No.

I think that, until you can eliminate a person's avarice, that person will naturally want to be on top. What I find so goddamn strange about you, Bal, is how you can claim to be a communist and yet have such little faith in humanity. Communism, at the end of the day, is an exercise in surrender. You surrender your right to capital, to ownership essentially. And you do this under the assumption that others will too. You need to have faith in humanity for that assumption to be even remotely possible. I just don't understand the necessary level of cognitive dissonance that one would have to possess in order to achieve your level hypocrisy to actually believe in Communism but not have faith in humans.

It boggles the mind.

Anyhow, sorry not finding the exact source I wanted to find. I may find it later.

BTW, that's what source and some level of proof looks like.

Oh, and so you know I'm *not* bull-shitting you:
The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Edited by Peter Simon, Copyright 2001 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Published in New York.

(I realize the citation isn't MLA but I hate MLA... with a passion... and I hate citing but oh well. It's a necessary evil)

*small mistakes were edited

Quote :

Oh, and so you know I'm bull-shitting you:

Should probably be "not". Regardless, Bal - you're up to the plate. You're being called out. Don't think your last post was reason enough to not reply. Your beliefs are being harshly judged. Will you let these capitalists do so???

To what Pyth said, although I can lay down an argument for communism - I do think that certain things would have to take place before such an economy was formed. For one either this would have to be a nationwide task, and there would be no more other types of governance (No more capitalists countries/states etc.) or this would have to happen after some sort of catastrophe, such as one of the ones you see in movies where 99% of the Earths population dies. It's the startup that's hard/impossible to do which is why I don't fully endorse it, I just think it can be done. O, it also assumes that people are naturally good, or can at least be taught to be so to the extent that greed is altered to a form of greed for the human race instead of it's current state of greed for ones self, and maybe ones that one are close too.

Balnazzar wrote:

OHH WTH, I missclicked go back and lost my whole post...

I don't feel like retyping it, so I'll just say this:

This is getting boring and repetitive, why?

Because you Should know more about the general communist stand against religion.
Very shortened: It makes you weaker because you think "Everything is good, and no matter what happens, even if I do nothing good with my life and don't try to become better, I'll still go to Heaven, so it's all good.".
Basically, it's an illusion that stops you from fighting for progress and freedom.

1. The old, "ololol i acciduntlys clickt backwords and lost mah amazing-ultra-uber post taht woud kickzor your buttzor in tihs argooment"

2. The Bible states that all humans are sinners. Sinning is not good. Thus, it is stating that no matter how hard we try, we will ALWAYS be sinners. What does that tell you? It's telling ME that I should strive to do my best, but know that I'll not be perfect. It doesn't mean we're all evil. It also just says that we are not good, either. It's saying that we can be good, but we'll still always have a bit of evil in us. It's saying that we can be evil, but still always be up for redemption.

Freedom? You're a communist. You oppress your people by making them believe what you believe; nothing. That's not freedom. That's enslavement. Freedom is allowing people to believe what they WANT to believe, not what their leaders decide what they should believe. And having the right to freely move around without being shot for doing something that is termed, "incorrect" in a communist society.

Quote :

Freedom? You're a communist. You oppress your people by making them believe what you believe; nothing. That's not freedom. That's enslavement. Freedom is allowing people to believe what they WANT to believe, not what their leaders decide what they should believe. And having the right to freely move around without being shot for doing something that is termed, "incorrect" in a communist society.

I really think you misunderstand communism Bart. You can have a democratic communist system. Communism isn't exactly a type of government as it is an economical structure. You can believe what you want, and have free speech in a communist country - it doesn't change the fact that people are treated equally.

I think you have the problem of seeing what is labeled as communism, such as Russia & Cuba and China and not what real communism is, which has never happened. The 3 countries I listed had problems with their governmental system - not their economical one.

Don't get me wrong, you can have a fascist or dictatorship type communist country too, but hell - you can have them in capitalist countries too, it's just less apparent. It's the people with the money that are in control. Illuminati and shit . But seriously - I think you misunderstand communism.

A democratic system is horrible. It's ruled by the people, which, in my opinion, is an absolutely horrid concept. It means that people who are idiotic can make decisions. It means that people who have no idea what they're doing can make decisions.

I don't see why people want this kind of system. It makes it so every single last person on Earth is equally balanced for making decisions. Opportunity should be equal, but achievement should remain individual. If you want to make decisions, then you should EARN the right to DO so, not automatically start with it. Humans are idiots in general. Take the amount of people you think are intelligent and wise, and then take the amount of people who are completely idiotic. How many people do you have that are smart, and how many do you have that are idiotic? About a million to one. A democratic system makes it so that the idiots get the right to make the decisions.

What's another problem is that sometimes, (edit) not SOMETIMES; ALWAYS, sooner or later, the idiots take charge of the country, and that's what destroys it.

Bartimaeus wrote:

A democratic system is horrible. It's ruled by the people, which, in my opinion, is an absolutely horrid concept. It means that people who are idiotic can make decisions. It means that people who have no idea what they're doing can make decisions.

I don't see why people want this kind of system. It makes it so every single last person on Earth is equally balanced for making decisions. Opportunity should be equal, but achievement should remain individual. If you want to make decisions, then you should EARN the right to DO so, not automatically start with it. Humans are idiots in general. Take the amount of people you think are intelligent and wise, and then take the amount of people who are completely idiotic. How many people do you have that are smart, and how many do you have that are idiotic? About a million to one. A democratic system makes it so that the idiots get the right to make the decisions.

What's another problem is that sometimes, (edit) not SOMETIMES; ALWAYS, sooner or later, the idiots take charge of the country, and that's what destroys it.

HAHA, I WIN!!!! I was right when I said you just post whatever the hell you post because you support dictatorships.

Jay.J wrote:

I really think you misunderstand communism Bart. You can have a democratic communist system. Communism isn't exactly a type of government as it is an economical structure. You can believe what you want, and have free speech in a communist country - it doesn't change the fact that people are treated equally.

You are completely right there, Jay.
Tough according to Marxism, economics like "The base" of the whole system, social, political, and etc.

Jay.J wrote:

I think you have the problem of seeing what is labeled as communism, such as Russia & Cuba and China and not what real communism is, which has never happened. The 3 countries I listed had problems with their governmental system - not their economical one.

Don't get me wrong, you can have a fascist or dictatorship type communist country too, but hell - you can have them in capitalist countries too, it's just less apparent. It's the people with the money that are in control. Illuminati and shit . But seriously - I think you misunderstand communism.

You are right again, Jay.
There are many kinds of communism, including Trotskyism (I'm a trotskyist), Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism (I hate them both), which are REALLY similar, and even Religious Communism. I said this before.
All of those countries are more Stalinists than Leninists or Trotskyists.

And yes, dictatorships are just less obvious in capitalist countries.

Bartimaeus wrote:

2. The Bible states that all humans are sinners. Sinning is not good. Thus, it is stating that no matter how hard we try, we will ALWAYS be sinners. What does that tell you? It's telling ME that I should strive to do my best, but know that I'll not be perfect. It doesn't mean we're all evil. It also just says that we are not good, either. It's saying that we can be good, but we'll still always have a bit of evil in us. It's saying that we can be evil, but still always be up for redemption.

Bart, seriously, this makes me think YOU should read each and every post before you post.
The bible just states what the bible writers though was "good" and "evil".
In my own personal opinion, people shouldn't be judged as "good" or "evil" as much as "Successful" and "Unsuccessful".
On another topic, Redemption is a stupid thing.
Stop thinking "Communism = Dictatorship", from my point of view:
Communism should start with a completely free and equal Educational System,that would make people's chances more equal.
People should ALWAYS have the same chances, not necessarily the same outcome.
People would be rewarded by working FOR the state; which would dedicate ENTIRELY to the people.
Language should be the same in the whole world, and yes, that should be enforced, it makes chances more equal.

Bartimaeus wrote:

1. The old, "ololol i acciduntlys clickt backwords and lost mah amazing-ultra-uber post taht woud kickzor your buttzor in tihs argooment"

Everyone here knows I don't write like that, so stop being so childish.
Besides, I was bored of this thread at that moment, wich is reason enough for me not to write it again.

Bartimaeus wrote:

I don't see why people want this kind of system. It makes it so every single last person on Earth is equally balanced for making decisions. Opportunity should be equal, but achievement should remain individual. If you want to make decisions, then you should EARN the right to DO so, not automatically start with it.

ROFL @ BART!
You seriously believe that everyone has equal chances in a capitalist system? :/
You should move to Africa or at least a "Third-World" country.

Balnazzar wrote:

HAHA, I WIN!!!! I was right when I said you just post whatever the hell you post because you support dictatorships.

I do not support dictatorships. Not that you said that, anyways. You said monarchy, which, afaik, isn't the same as dictatorship.

A government should be made up of several, (if not), a lot smart people, not just one person with ultimate power. That creates corruption. Corruption eventually causes destruction. Destruction causes the eventual fall of a nation, because some time or another, either the people will fight back, or they're going to get bombed to hell.

Communism would be better if it wasn't ruled by the majority of idiotic humans. Like I said, the general human is an idiot. Make it so he/she can vote, and then you make it so every single idiot that doesn't know what's best for their country able to vote on what they want.

Sure, they're free, but they're causing their own demolition in the long run.

The only reason you should get bored when you start your own argument with someone is when you're losing.

Bartimaeus wrote:

Balnazzar wrote:
HAHA, I WIN!!!! I was right when I said you just post whatever the hell you post because you support dictatorships.


I do not support dictatorships. Not that you said that, anyways. You said monarchy, which, afaik, isn't the same as dictatorship.

A government should be made up of several, (if not), a lot smart people, not just one person with ultimate power. That creates corruption. Corruption eventually causes destruction. Destruction causes the eventual fall of a nation, because some time or another, either the people will fight back, or they're going to get bombed to hell.

Communism would be better if it wasn't ruled by the majority of idiotic humans. Like I said, the general human is an idiot. Make it so he/she can vote, and then you make it so every single idiot that doesn't know what's best for their country able to vote on what they want.

Sure, they're free, but they're causing their own demolition in the long run.

The only reason you should get bored when you start your own argument with someone is when you're losing.

2 things, both objective:

1_I really think Bartimaeus is stupid...

2_Oligarchy fails, Bart, and why is that? Because the people who are in power are actually just the descendants of the smart people, or maybe not even that, but the descendants of people who were friends with smart people and got a governmental spot.
It creates corruption and leads toward a Monarchy.


P.S.: I knew he was gonna delete this at least once. XD

Balnazzar wrote:

Bartimaeus wrote:

Balnazzar wrote:
HAHA, I WIN!!!! I was right when I said you just post whatever the hell you post because you support dictatorships.


I do not support dictatorships. Not that you said that, anyways. You said monarchy, which, afaik, isn't the same as dictatorship.

A government should be made up of several, (if not), a lot smart people, not just one person with ultimate power. That creates corruption. Corruption eventually causes destruction. Destruction causes the eventual fall of a nation, because some time or another, either the people will fight back, or they're going to get bombed to hell.

Communism would be better if it wasn't ruled by the majority of idiotic humans. Like I said, the general human is an idiot. Make it so he/she can vote, and then you make it so every single idiot that doesn't know what's best for their country able to vote on what they want.

Sure, they're free, but they're causing their own demolition in the long run.

The only reason you should get bored when you start your own argument with someone is when you're losing.

2 things, both objective:

1_I really think Bartimaeus is stupid...

2_Oligarchy fails, Bart, and why is that? Because the people who are in power are actually just the descendants of the smart people, or maybe not even that, but the descendants of people who were friends with smart people and got a governmental spot.
It creates corruption and leads toward a Monarchy.


P.S.: I knew he was gonna delete this at least once. XD

First, delete what?

Second, thanks for flaming me, once again, showing your amazing maturity in arguments. I really appreciate the level of intelligence in your posts.

Thirdly, maybe. Then again, look at past kingdoms, who use the power of heridatry monarchy, making it so their descendents are the rulers, instead of the people who SHOULD be. Maybe for a few generations it would work...but no, it usually ends up in bad rulers. Using descendents to rule the throne is a big mistake.

Bartimaeus wrote:

Thirdly, maybe. Then again, look at past kingdoms, who use the power of heridatry monarchy, making it so their descendents are the rulers, instead of the people who SHOULD be. Maybe for a few generations it would work...but no, it usually ends up in bad rulers. Using descendents to rule the throne is a big mistake.

Man, seriously, read twice before posting, that's exactly what I said.

Bartimaeus wrote:

First, delete what?

You deleted the other post, and don't deny it.

P.S.: I copy all my posts in a notepad file, unless it's really insignificant.

Balnazzar wrote:

Bartimaeus wrote:

Thirdly, maybe. Then again, look at past kingdoms, who use the power of heridatry monarchy, making it so their descendents are the rulers, instead of the people who SHOULD be. Maybe for a few generations it would work...but no, it usually ends up in bad rulers. Using descendents to rule the throne is a big mistake.

Man, seriously, read twice before posting, that's exactly what I said.

Bartimaeus wrote:

First, delete what?

You deleted the other post, and don't deny it.

P.S.: I copy all my posts in a notepad file, unless it's really insignificant.

I still don't even know what you're talking about.

Secondly, I only repeated what you said, because you acted like I was saying it was right, instead of wrong.

Bartimaeus wrote:

Secondly, I only repeated what you said, because you acted like I was saying it was right, instead of wrong.

Ohh, yes, I'm really sorry, you are right about that, I just read it again.

Balnazzar wrote:

Bartimaeus wrote:

Secondly, I only repeated what you said, because you acted like I was saying it was right, instead of wrong.

Ohh, yes, I'm really sorry, you are right about that, I just read it again.

Wait, I don't get it.

I am unsure if you mean that I was restating what you said, or you were restating that's what you said; my opinion is wrong.

Confuzzled, I am. I have to go re-read...ugh.

(edit) Okay, so, you say that having a descendent line is bad, right, in a ruling sort-of-way? Well, I agree. Sure, you might have one or two people...but that's about it. Chances are, you're going to get some bad genes, and you'll end up being stupid.

Right, so then someone should be re-elected as ruler...are you saying that the ruler system, in general, is bad, or what? Because it makes it so that one individual can do whatever they want, thus leading to corruption?

Lol, I figured it was a little confusing the way I wrote it, but was too lazy to write it again, sorry.

I meant that I thought you were in favour of Oligarchy, and then I figured you aren't.
So I apologised for that.

Balnazzar wrote:

Lol, I figured it was a little confusing the way I wrote it, but was too lazy to write it again, sorry.

I meant that I thought you were in favour of Oligarchy, and then I figured you aren't.
So I apologised for that.

I don't believe it. Looks like a huge troll to me. Also, edited my post.

Also, guys, can I get your opinions on this? Troll, or for reelz?

... Wth Bart, I just said it was no Troll post.

I RARELY apologise, unless I realise I was wrong or made a mistake.

So just take the apology. XD

Balnazzar wrote:

... Wth Bart, I just said it was no Troll post.

I RARELY apologise, unless I realise I was wrong or made a mistake.

So just take the apology. XD

Yeah, but...it could be, like, the BEST troll in the world...I accept your apology, and then you say something so absolutely ridiculous that I get extremely mad.

Also, I swear I did not delete your post.

In the case it's not a troll: Apology accepted, and I apolgize to you. I do not try to oppress your opinions and religion, so please, do not try to oppress mine.

In the case it IS a troll: HAHA GTFO LOLOLOL LIEK I GOIN TO ACEPT DAT TROLL