Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/6/03 07:37 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: so then the ends helping others justifies the means of being selfish? That sounds like a blatant rationalization.

Bravo, sir. You are now a moral relativist.

Morality has everything to do with intent. If the intent is to preserve yourself because keeping yourself alive is important to you, then you are obviously slightly selfish, if you stay alive because it enables you to help others, then you are being selfless, that's intent, and that's what morality is all about.

For example if I fixed my friends computer because he generally gives out money to people who do things for him, and I did it to get a part of that money, then I'm doing it out selfishness, if I fix the computer because I want to end my friend's suffering and frustration, then I'm being selfless. I'm doing it for another person. The act is the same in both scenerios, it's the intent that decides whether or not it's selfish.

At 9/6/03 07:26 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: The instinct for self preservation causes self interest. Self concern is necessary for existance. Eating, breathing, and procreating are all selfish actions. But without them, humanity cannot exist. If every person were self sufficient, the humanity would be free. Instead, we are shackled by the inefficiencies of our peers, and our desires to help them.

If you live a selfless life where you live to help others, then self preservation becomes a means to an end. You preserve yourself so that you can continue to do as much good as you possibly can, that's not a selfish motivation, and once you get to the stage where helping others is an important part of your life, then merely living seems pointless without the added benefit of helping others.

At 9/6/03 01:24 PM, Russian_Mobster wrote: WTF is a quaker... i am jewish and here are my results!

A Christian (Protestant) sect that believes in the bible, and through it the same Tanakh as Jews beleive in.

Secular Humanism (100%) according to the test. I don't proclaim any religion, and I don't consider SH a religion anyway, nor would I necessarily attach myself to it.

Just some philosophical questions I wanted to run by you so I know where you stand on some issues.

1) If man is created in God's image and is inherently evil. Then isn't God inherently evil as well?

2) If God is perfect, and man is created in his image, then why are we imperfect? If you claim we started out perfect and became imperfect, how would perfect minds be capable of straying off of that path?

3) Do you believe that torture is a good act?

4) Does the bible command the murder of entire races of people?

5) How many breeds of animals were there prior to the flood, and how far away from Noah were animals existent.

6) Do you think there was a human population in areas like China and South America during the time of the flood?

7) Did the people that built the tower of Babel really have the capability to reach heaven?

8) Is heaven really in the sky?

9) Can birds fly above the firmament of Heaven?

10) What does firmament mean?

The math is good. I notice that you did not cite verse two which clearly specifies that the passage was only listing the men.

I didn't mention it because it can't be proven whether it truly refers to men (I tend to think it is only referring to men, but men can be used to refer to people in general), and because it's a moot point anyway, since the same standard that would only include men in it's survey, would likely exclude women from mention in figures of their congregation.

Also 2:22-23 seems to list "men" synonymously. No doubt the difference is because women were counted as part of the "whole congregation." While that would mean twice as many men as women, one would expect that the act of rebuilding the homeland would attract a number of single young men.

Translate: paraphrased fundy inerrantist bs. It could be the case, but certainly not strong enough to make the claim that there is "no doubt" for the reason in the discrepency. Not only that but you denied to make a point on the actual number contradictions between the first estimate and the second estimate. Most fundies will take the side of omission in this case, some claim they were taken at different time periods. But if you state for the case of omission in numbers leading to the difference in the two totals, then you still have to contend with the fact that the per family/city numbers contradict each other very very heavily. Also the number of singers, horses, mules, drachmas, etc... all contradict heavily as well, leaves this point negated. As well as the claims of omission in the first place, since giving exact numbers per family implies that they were intent on accuracy, and leaving out whole families would hardly seem wise. The latter excuse that there was a difference in time periods, contradicts the end numbers. If they were different time periods it seems a little bit too coincidental that the end number of the congregation was exactly the same, as well as the uneven growth rates that would have occurred between the familys.

Indeed, Ezra 9 describes a massive confrontation because the Jewish young men took themselves Gentile women of the land in violation of God's law.

Yeah and YHWH doesn't seem to mind them taking Gentile slaves, err wives in many other areas of the bible does he?

LOL, I just went through all 8 pages of this topic. It was funny. Every subject has been covered and the only side that came out still true and unspoted has been the creationist side. Yet people seem to cast the proofs I gave aside. They simply ignore them. Yet I did not ignore anything. I met all of them head on.

I don't think you came out true, that's completely a matter of opinion, as I said before I don't have time to go back and refute all the bs you've spewed, but it's all been refuted elsewhere by a thousand other people, maybe you should stop being so naive and closed minded.

Anyway, lets keep going. I am still waiting to see if anyone else can prove the bible is wrong. The last guy made a good try at the "mistakes" in the bible, but I explained them. So does anyone else have some more?

You "explained" them you mean? Requoting some fundie inerrantist bs doesn't mean you are right or that they were right when they initially wrote it down, the issue has been debated into the ground thousands of times, and the errantists always come up on top, because the inerrantists have to stoop to such illogical and laughable mannerisms to try to excuse the inept biblical authors. After about three or four rounds of these, the preponderance of evidence buries the inerrantists and although they find enough excuses to keep their faith, anyone observing knows what intellectual dishonestys had to occur to keep their standpoint on the issue.

Since you want some more I'll toss out another one just because you're so fond of the ark in your little fantasy regarding evolution:

[Genesis 7:8] Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9: There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Alright take note of a few things in this verse. First it denotes which animals are going into the ark clean beasts AND beasts that are not clean, you are to take in groups of 2. The key word here is "and", and the fact that clean beasts were supposed to enter the boat in groups of two, male and female.

[Genesis 6:19] And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20: Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them all.

So twice more we have reiterated that there are two of each animal onboard the ship. A male and a female. The earlier implication was that they were also to enter the ship in pairs as well. You'll note it says "every living thing", which would also include clean and unclean animals.

[Genesis 7:2] Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. : 3: Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Then suddenly in Chapter 7 God has a mindslip, because apparently now you are supposed to take on the clean beasts in groups of 7. Not groups of two. It even clarifies that unclean beasts you are to take in groups of two. Suddenly birds also are taken in by 7. And it also clarifies the male and the female. Explain to me how you even get a group of 7 made out of coupled pairs of male and females? There are many many more contradictions within this story, but I'll save them for later. I want your thoughts on this, and try to use your brain this time, not some inerrantist fundie's excuses that were carefully crafted for other fanatics and only work without the use of logic or reason.

At 9/5/03 08:16 PM, looksgood wrote: Well, without going into your other statments, which I could,

If you say so.

I will only deal with these things you brought up.

As opposed to those things I didn't bring up.

Because you already said you agree with me on the KJV being the bible.

I specifically agreed that the KJV was the most accurate translation of the bible, I in no way implied that if compared to the original manuscripts (which we don't have access to) they would match up in meaning. We really don't know and the interpretations seen in other texts that correlated with scriptures doesn't imply that any English translations are terribly accurate. But it is almost certainly the most accurate we have to work with.

:Like I said though, God has the ability and He does preserve His word from generation to generation.

If it changes between translations, and the interpretations of translations like the NIV become more commonplace, then how is the message not changing?

Oh and for all that hitler stuff, God has a system of judgment. You don't exicute someone untill they have been judged with good judgment. And only God may judge people because we are all guilty. So lets get to this.

Totally skirting around the point that God did command people to murder others in those situations. In most case the only requirement was that there were two witnesses, some didn't even have that stipulation. This is hardly anything similar to due process of law, and it doesn't take much judgment into affect. Hitler had just as much right to follow the bible as you do, so I don't see why you have beef with him.

I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" and II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" There is no contradiction. He had 40,000 stalls for horses yet only 4,000 stalls for the chariots. They had 10 men and 10 horses per chariot.

Oh look how cute, he knows how to use a search engine. Look if you are going to quote other fundies answers to errancy in the bible, then perhaps you should at least learn how to read so you can understand the recycled fundie excuses. You misinterpreted what the inerrantist was trying to say. Why would a chariot need a stall? Also the latter verse specificaly says 4,000 stalls for horses AND chariots. Obviously implying the stalls were for the horses as well, not just for the chariots. This is one of the weakest fundie excuses. The least idiotic fundie excuse for this is that in the latter version there were only 4k stalls because the stalls were larger, and they held both the chariots and the horses. But this leaves out a couple of important logical factors. A) These were obviously describing the same stablehouse and referring to the same army, and same time period (the number of chariots and horsement is static). So even under this perspective it's still a contradiction, because the number of stalls which held horses are being described, and there is a variation in that number. B) stalls are meant for a purpose, seperating the animals, generally speaking, if they were going to group the animals, they would probably not have stalls, so it is doubtful they would make "stalls" that held 10 horses and a chariot or whatever. It is also unlikely that they put chariots in stalls. The most logical and likely interpretation of the discrepency is that the writer of Chronicles initially read the number quoted in Kings, and misinterpreted it. Not only from the numeric perspective, but also from the idea of what the stalls were used for. The Kings verse specifically notes that the stalls were for horses (for his chariots), distinguishing what the horses were doing. Although I don't know why he would need that many horses when he didn't have that many chariots. But anyway, the second version misinterpreted that to mean that the stalls were for the horses and for the chariots, instead of that the stalls were for the horses (who were for the chariots).

Both are correct. It "received and held" up to 3000 baths (Chronicles). Kings says it "contained" 2000 baths. Apparently they did not make a practice of filling it to the top, perhaps keeping it convenient for the washing.

Are you including words here? Can you show me where it says "up to"? If it recieved 3,000 baths, it contained 3,000 baths right? Of course the previous verse totally disregards the value of Pi, and thus the dimensions for the tub weren't accurate anyway, but the inerrantists actually have an unprovable excuse for this as well, since they simply just say the rim wasn't measured in the circumfrence estimates. And nobody can prove that either way, but inerrantists love to assume shit. So it's that aspect is a moot point. Unfortunately for inerrantists, mathematics shows that 2000 "baths" of water would actually fill such a structure almost to the rim, with the rim extending about 0.3461 cubits above the water level, certainly not enough to hold another 1,000 "baths". So there is no way the sea of bronze could even have held 3,000 "baths".

At 9/6/03 08:54 AM, ShubNiggurath wrote: There hasn't even BEEN a true communist government yet. The problem with communism isn't communism, it's PEOPLE: people whose self-interest overrides every other concern they might face.

You'd think people would have picked this point up by now. I mean how many times do we have to reiterate this point?

At 9/5/03 07:04 PM, looksgood wrote: Well first, if there was a version of Isaiah it WAS old testament. And like I said, the bible was not translated from them. In fact, if someone was tring to correct the bible it would mean they were at fault and not the bible.

The implication was that the Dead Sea Scrolls were in line with the teachings of the Tanakh, and they actually confirmed that the "Word of God" was unscathed by time. But in fact it was completely dishonest since the scriptures that did correlate did so poorly, and the majority of them flat out contradicted the bible. I do agree with the latter part of this statement.

You have no evidence.

You make assumptions.

No by my logic God has preserved the bible. You can do whatever you want in the name of something. But that doesnt mean the thing you name agrees with you.

But the Word of God did command those things. Do you deny that the bible commands genocide? Do you deny that it commands you to murder gays? Do you deny that it commands you to kill witches and those that worship other gods? Do you deny that it commands you to kill adultresses? And you've agreed to the Tanakh being the Word of God already, so don't try to use the "that's the Old Testament" excuse.

So why would you say they are wrong if God preserves His word? And if He is the same God that never lies then He does do that. It is the same word of God no matter what speach you say it in.

The KJV isn't the bible whose translation I have a problem with. It's a piece of shit based on what it is, but at least it inherited it's errors instead of adding them. It's people like the NIV and the Living Bible people who try to dishonestly mistranslate the bible that I have beef with. And these bibles are gaining in popularity, while the KJV loses it.

So it wouldn't matter cause they still tried to "fix" Gods word.

But these are still translations, that are being delivered to people in God's name, don't you have a problem with that? And doesn't that mean that God's message isn't getting through without distortion?

I do not say anything is a mistranslation. As long as you use the KJV. So lay them on me.

I always use the KJV. I'll toss a few at you and see how reasonable you are, if you have half a brain, I may come back to give you some of the deeper ones that actually require a couple brain cells to consider.

As any bible scholar knows, Kings and Chronicles correlated on many stories, often telling the same story in each chapter, comparing just these two verses brings up numerous contradictions. You could say they are due to translation errors, but it still destroys the integrity of the delivered product of the bible, and reiterates the fact that someone doesn't know what the hell they were talking about.

[1 Kings 4:26] And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

Solomon had 40,000 stalls and 12,000 horsemen.

[2 Chronicles 9:25] And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Or was that 4,000 stalls and 12,000 horsemen?

[1 Kings 7:26] And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

So Solomon had a bathhouse with 2000 baths right?

[2 Chronicles 4:5] And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.

Oopsy did God's holy messengers fuck up yet again? I swore it said 2000 but apparently it was 3000 baths. Hmm not very good mathematicians at work here eh?

[Ezra 2:64] The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,

For those of you who don't know old English, let me translate, that means 42,360 people in the congregation

[Nehemiah 7:66] The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,

Again 42,360 people, so that must be the amount then right?

Well if you happen to be good at math you can go back and add the totals yourself, and you find out that the total in Ezra is 29,818, and the total in Nehemiah is 31.089 neither of which equal the amount claimed to be the total in both verses. Anyway, this shit goes on and on and on, but I have to get some shit done now, so I'll try to remember to come back in and check in on your mental development later. Bye.

At 9/5/03 06:59 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I disagree with anyone who says that being gay is not a choice. I think it is. I also think it's not natural, not normal and a bit weird. I just don't give a monkeys. They aren't hurting anyone, they are two consenting adults and they're having fun. Let them be.

So you take the stance that we choose who we are attracted to? You never feel lust for anyone (instinctive desire) and you just decide that people are attractive when you decide that you want them to be right?

At 9/5/03 06:47 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Summary: Capitalism works, communism doesn't. But with Capitalism do you really want to think about the hundreds of children who had two hours sleep and get up at 5 in the morning to make shoes to fuel your economy? Thought not.

In a real communist environment though, it would work, especially from an economic angle. People always do better when they work together for mutual gain. Capitalism works against itself more than it actually improves anything, that's why our economy stagnates and is unstable, and withers in a second. Capitalism is constantly struggling against itself. Whereas communism would move forward and expand constantly. I made an analogy about the inner workings of the systems and how they reflect on the end result in one of the other redundant threads. Communism has never been done on a large scale, and those who tried to implement it were stopped by tyranny, and had feeble economys to begin with. I doubt even communism could have saved most of them.

At 9/5/03 06:29 PM, looksgood wrote: LOL, first off, what did I lie about?

The age of the Dead Sea Scrolls in comparison to other biblical texts, you portrayed the DSS as old testament translations, when in fact they weren't, and those scriptures that they did have in common with the Tanakh deviated largely in meaning and interpretation, not to mention the majority of the DSS were apocryphal style teachings that heavily contradicted the bible, and even itself. Plus the DSS even had contextual problems within it's versions of Isaiah, which leads most people to believe they were working on rewriting the bible.

Second, if you did have time you would not be able to do anymore than say "it isn't true because I don't believe it."

Or show you a bunch of evidence that you would just ignore, much as you did with my initial point.

And third, God is able to preserve His word from generation to generation.

That's why atheism is on the rise huh? By your logic, every horror the church ever inflicted in the name of the scriptures was a direct act of God. Congratulations, at best you just made YHWH more akin to Hitler than most Christians are willing to admit.

Also as far as I know the bible is not originaly wrote or even translated from those scrolls. Instead:

No shit sherlock.

The King James was translated from the Textus Receptus of which about 5000 copies or parts of copies exist today.

And as such the KJV (which still doesn't correlate even closely with the DSS) is the best English translation we have. But the Textus Receptus were also translations, despite what some people would like to claim.

Most other modern versions are good translations of the corrupt manuscripts often called the Alexandrian manuscripts.

No most of them are currupt English to English (and yes I'm aware of the NIV claims) translations that pretend they got source material from external sources when in fact they were just trying to fix the errors in the English version in the first place. And more

I would recommend the web site www.avpublications.com for those interested in great material on this topic.

Great means biased in your vocabulary? Hmm.

But there are no errors in the bible I know of. Thus my challenge. Can you find ANY? If so post them.

Oh God too numerous to count. But if I bring them up you'll just try to write them off as translation errors, because you're an apologetic who is too afraid to face reality. Just the numerical contradictions alone are wall to wall in the bible, especially in books like Kings.

At 9/5/03 04:41 PM, looksgood wrote: Basicly you are saying the bible has changed through time. No, it hasn’t. God has preserved His Word.

Hahahahaha, I don't have time to refute the sheer immensity of bullshit you have spewed in this thread, but now you've resorted to out and out lying. You are one of the most annoying sheep I've seen in a long time, and someday when I'm not busy with reconfiguring my linux box, and creating a distro, I'll come back and hand your ass to you and teach you about the bible and bible scholarship and canonization (all concepts which you obviously have no grasp of).

In the spring of 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These manuscripts were copies of large portions of the Old Testament,

No they weren't. There were hints at many Torah scriptures, parts of Leviticus, parts of Psalms, parts of Genesis, parts of Isaiah, etc. and almost all of them were highly contradictory to what the Tanakh said, because the Qumran community was an off shoot of Judaism, they were basically akin to the Christians, in that they were intentionally trying to rewrite Judaism and when the mainstream wouldn't follow along, they just branched off. And the Qumran aren't even the oldest biblical manuscripts let alone 1000 years older (since most scholars date them to be written around 200 BC) than any other. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls apparently borrowed heavily from the Gnostic faiths, and may have also been an offshoot from them instead. But either way, there is a good reason they didn't canonize the Dead Sea Scrolls when they found them, if you think the Apocrypha is contradictory to biblical teachings, wait until you read the Dead Sea Scrolls.

a thousand years older than any other existing copies. Study of the scrolls has revealed that the Bible hasn’t changed in content down through the ages as many skeptics had surmised.

Buuuuuullllllssssshhhhitttt.

Anyone can now obtain access to computer programs that give the original Hebrew and Greek words, and the only "changes" have been made for clarity.

Nobody on the planet speaks the original Hebrew that the Tanakh was initially written in, it was actually a lot closer to Ugaritic and the other Canaanite written languages than anything else, and it barely resembles modern Hebrew. And the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't written in Ancient Hebrew either.

For example, the old English translation of 2 Corinthians 12:8 is "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice ...," while a contemporary translation is "Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times..." In other words Words only changed as the speach of the day changed. It was just to translate to a new generation. But it is still the same scriptures.

Oh believe me the translators have taken their liberties to get their own personal interests into script, especially in the case of the pieces of shit that translate the NIV and other bibles like it who use dishonesty to try to weed out the contradictions in the scriptures. Anyway, you're ignorant, you're dishonest, and you're sitting here fucking with a bunch of people who don't even want to bother arguing with a religious nutcase. I don't know what you hope to accomplish, but you're just going to turn people off of your sheepism. I'd love to put you in your place, but I really don't have the time. So fare thee well in your quest for ignorance...err bliss.

At 9/5/03 03:25 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: But wait the USSR was openly atheist, and they got in SHITLOADS of wars. I think it's arrogance that causes war, not religion. Religion is just another word for traditional philosophy. Its when you think everyone else is wrong and needs to be disciplined for their ignorance, that's when you get war.

The USSR was in a bunch of defensive wars. They generally didn't have much of a choice. And organized religion was forbidden under the "communist" regime in USSR, but Stalin pretty much thought he was God, and certainly thought he was above everyone else at the very least. I think self worship is not atheism, unless you "worship" every human equally at least. When you make a god of yourself, I don't think you qualify for atheism anymore.

At 9/4/03 10:51 PM, Goatlord wrote: Keep in mind, Dante, that you're only omitted until you can provide some information regarding your name. Here's Rookman, finally. I wanted to make him a rook piece, but I wanted him to be anthropomorphic, since a regular chess piece is boring.

The Thing! It's clobberin' time. Heh.

At 9/5/03 08:08 AM, Andy_Parker wrote: But if they truely were communists then the leader would then stand down.

Good point, would Stalin have backed down then? Or did the people really have no say in the government? Doesn't that make my point for me?

Im tired and im not american. Im not going to bother argueing.

Isn't arguing the only reason you're here?

Then hurry up and die, you are slowing down the workforce.

Uh Oh, I think you missed again.

No, if they spent less time listening to talentless 20 year olds singing through voice enhancing microphones and more time making money and boosting the economy then id be happy.

The RIAA is a primary example of Capitalism, and they are only in the position they are because of those people, so they are making plenty of money for someone.

restricted by the borders of communism.

Trapped within the confines of Capitalism.

Yes, if you make more money than me, you are better than me, and there is a difference between nobodies who dont give a fuck about anyone else and people like me who dont give a fuck about anyone else and hate communism.

I love this illusion you carry around that you are somehow important. You're just as much of a nobody as anyone else. Probably less than most, because you will never change the world. You'll never be anything, just a mindless consumer.

At 9/4/03 04:45 PM, Sekky wrote: Which in your opinion causes, or has the potential to cause, the most wars? A religious government, a capitalistic government, an imperialistic government, or a militaristic government?

Although there are general a combination of these elements, religion in the government is the most consistent presence in the causation of wars.

At 9/4/03 02:33 PM, TheShrike wrote: Speaking of~

You've been voted in, Roy.
www.snooble.com/forums

Cool, thank you, by the way my name is Cory. Just for anyone who cares. I don't particularly like the name Roy, it's the symbolism behind Roy Batty I was goin for ;)

At 9/4/03 11:23 PM, cold_killa wrote: do not judge my statement unless you happen to be well educated about anarchy. I completly think that anarchy is the way to go. Goverment will never be perfect because the people who run it arn't. there is a natural yearning for power and control once one has it.

I don't think the Anarchist movement had a right to the term honestly. Since true anarchy wasn't their goal. Basically the difference between Anarchism and Communism is cooperation though. In Anarchism there is no drive for the greater good, and the people don't bond together, I think I see communism as a lot more respectable goal than that. And I think it would actually accomplish things. True anarchy is definitely something I wouldn't want, but that wouldn't be the goal of the Anarchism movement, but it might actually be the result, and I think they would regret their stance if it did occur.

At 9/5/03 01:51 AM, Nephthys wrote:

At 9/5/03 01:46 AM, BlGBADRON wrote:

At 9/5/03 01:44 AM, Nephthys wrote: I think she's good-looking. Does that make me gay too?

no, you didnt go rambling on about her "hotness"

But she IS hot. Very very hot.

Rowwwl.

We should find her and stage a threesome.

Ani Difranco-Coming Up

....
But I love this city, this state
This country is too large
And whoever's in charge up there
Had better take the elevator down
And put more than change in our cup
Or else we are coming up

At 9/4/03 07:22 AM, Andy_Parker wrote: People cant live in an equal world, they have dreams and want to achieve them, communism doesnt allow that.

Why can't everyone meet their dreams together? Why can't we all help each other get what we each want?

In a free world, if you are smart enough to own your own business then you will have an income regardless of work. you can spend all day on the beach, and assuming its a successful business you own, the money keeps coming.

It's really more of a matter of luck. Plenty of very intelligent people don't run business, plenty of really smart people fail at business because consumers are too dumb to appreciate them. There are a lot more factors at play. So these people that spend all day at the beach are...working then?

First of all, there would be no 'employers', everything belongs to the country. I stick with my comment from before, which was a quote "Communism works in theory... in theory"

There can still be companies within communism, they would just run like a 501(c)(3) organization, with all of their revenue being returned back to the society around them.

Kicking and screaming will only get you money if you are a wrestler. It takes hard work,and determination and only looking after yourself. Selfishness is a virtue.

Wow you missed the point, what a surprise. That was about fighting for those less fortunate than you, not making money, get a grip on your greed you repugnant chunk of bile.

Up to, bring youself up to. Unless the sharemarked crashes and my house explodes and my holiday home falls into the sea, that will never happen.

Sharemarked? Is there a leak somewhere, you are losing brain capacity by the second.

leaders end up being rulers, its human nature to desire. And you seem to be running on the assumption that everyone thinks exacly alike. that is not true. Everyone is an individual

And communism gives them an outlet to be who they want to be as long as they aren't making the crime of benefiting at the cost of other people's happiness.

At 9/4/03 07:10 AM, Andy_Parker wrote: Ive heard enough, i can guess the rest. I cant really elaborate because what i have to say, is so simple, that i cant comprehend that someone wouldnt understand.

Your two brain cells not communicating again?

How are individuals part of a machine, and a group of people who i can only describe with the word 'machine' not be a machine.

Let me try to explain this to you, even though I am pretty sure in advance that this is going to go way over your head, much like 1st grade English. A Capitalist society is a machine. A Communist society is a machine.

A Capitalist machine is split into sections. The first part is the front of the machine, where all the controls are (IE. the rich, the upper class). In this part of the machine, there is very little actual work going on, but most of the work being done in this part of the machine is to absorb the power being created by the rest of the machine. Now in the back of the machine, you have the other two sections that pretty much share the same space. There are the cogs and gears of the machine (the middle to well to do classes). And then there are the obstacles that get caught in the cogs and gears and create counterproductivity (the poor and the disenfranchised, the criminals, the ghetto areas, etc). Now this area can produce so much power for the machine, and it can direct it as it needs to. Now it can slowly build new cogs to keep the machine running, but it's not a very rapid process, and cogs break and have to be tossed aside where they get in the way and inhibit the work flow. Overall, this creates a very unproductive environment, and some of the power produced also has to go into cleaning up these elements to keep the machine running. Now all of the power that isn't used for this purpose is funneled to the front of the machine, where the parts at the front get fed the power and absorb it all to themselves. The machine itself never recieves the power, and thus can't move, can't improve itself can't advance.

A Communist machine is split into sections as well, but they are grouped by specializations, with each group communicating with the overall machine, and some people guiding the flow of things (not because they want the power, but because the people around them have decided that they are better at organization and planning). So the parts of the machine are all on the same level of importance, and they all play a part in the function of the machine. They act more like modules in a program. With each one of equal importance, some doing more work than others, and none being left out. Now as with Capitalism, this group slowly gains parts to it’s machine, and unlike Capitalism, it doesn’t lose any of those parts to breakdowns. Some of the power is used to keep them all running, but there is on counterproductive parts running around getting caught in the gears, and generally after repairs, the parts work twice as hard. Also each part in this society is perfectly specialized at what it does, and isn’t just filling in gaps where it’s needed, it’s planned into the spectrum where it will do best. So these modules are constantly improving, and they are all doing exactly what they are best at, which increases efficiency on every level. So not only is this system not paying the price for counter productivity, but it has more parts within it, and the parts work in better harmony, and are more efficient at each individual goal, so they work at 10 times the efficiency of the Capitalist machine. So it has 10 times the power being produced, and it has no one to funnel it into, so all of that power goes to the machine itself, which uses the energy to expand, to move forward, to redesign itself for more and more fluent ways of doing things every day, the machine grows in parts, it grows in efficiency, and it grows in power and everyone within it grows with it. This is the fundamental difference between the two systems.

In communism the broken parts dont matter, they can be disregarded, because there are many other cogs that can fill in. let me put it this way. lets make communism a folder on your computer, in this folder are many files which make the program work, but they are all doing the same thing. They all execute the same command. And Capitalism is another folder, with many different files, all running different commands. Some of these files will break and be sent to the 'recycle bin' and some will thrive and end up running the computer. Meanwhile in the communist folder the main .exe file is getting all the rewards and the rest of the files are being starved for maintainence. If you would like me to elaborate any more. Just ask.

Your argument is based on some very very big flaws in your understanding of communism. Pol Pot's regime was not a communist environment. Communism is structured on everyone doing what they are best at, the whole purpose of civilization is specialization, and each person does a different job in both systems. The difference is, that in communism, they have the time and comfort to perfect their trade of choice and use their expertise and natural skill for the betterment of mankind, whereas in capitalism, a very small portion actually are doing what they are natural best at, and most of them get caught in the trap of getting money doing things they hate, and this makes them less efficient, and they have no comfort zone to fall back on to get more training in what they want to do or start their own business. The more comfortable people are with pursuing their specialties the more the economy is focused on individuality and specialization, that is one of the key factors in communism.

At 9/4/03 06:58 AM, Andy_Parker wrote: That comment was on the use of bombing, not on communism.

And my comment (that you've missed the point of three times in a row) was that the army aren't the people who do the bombing, so thankfully when you join, you won't be in charge of bombing anyone.

im not a terrorist wannabe, im just making that point that its possible. and never question my knowledge, i can assure you its far more extensive than urs.

You can't honestly assure shit, you don't know me, for all you know I have a PHD in chemistry, you haven't even proven that you can formulate a simple thought, let alone a bomb.

Im talkin about plutonium, there wouldnt be stalls in a market selling it either. I mean the rich people who own major drug dealings and weaponry. I dont mean to sound like someone who spends their whole day watching movies like 'black hawk down' and the likes, im just saying that if terrorists can bomb a great country like america, imagine what they could do to russia.

I think your entire education came from movies, and not very good ones obviously.

At 9/4/03 06:56 AM, Dark-Fitz wrote: By the way, I think most of you were right in saying that Andy Parker (The creator of the thrread) just created it to start a stupid argument,
he has achevied his goal, and you were all sucked in! - badly!

Sadly enough we also enjoy arguing, even with people as stupid as he is. So no big deal :)

At 9/4/03 06:51 AM, Andy_Parker wrote: A country is deeper than its leader, we both know that.

However in a dictatorship, a country's government has a standpoint that goes no further, and it's the government that declared it a "communist" society, not the people.

As far as i cant tell you are implying that the USSR wasnt a communist country, if thats what you are saying then you dont belong on this forum.

I'm not implying anything, I'm telling you that by the traditions and origin of communism, USSR had no more to do with communism than America does. Less in fact, since we at least pretend to have a state that carries out the people's will.

If your skills arent respected, improve on rested skills. Or if you are like me you wil have skills in different areas so 30 years down the track the cash is still rolling in.

Why should you have to? You were born with talents, you are going to be at optimal in a society that will utilize those talents. If you can't be optimal you are just biding time until death.

Its not my fault that some low IQ teenaged girls like seeing gay people singing no-talent songs. I was commenting on the fact, yes its a fact, that you are more likely to become an astronaught than to become a famous musician. And i didnt make those statistics up either.

And those same low IQ people grow up to lay down the foundation that decides that some skills are worthwhile and some aren't. Those same people decide who makes the money in a capitalist society, is that what you really want?

Either way it proves the same point.

That you don't know what a "free world" is?

Obviously there is no skill more valued than that of money making.If you stabbed me, and it was a commonly know fact that you were a red, then i can garauntee that you would meet the same fate.

What if I stabbed you for money? That'd make more than you ever did probably. Does that mean my skill is better than yours? And who would be able to back up your guarantee? Are you under the impression you mean something to all the other capitalist fucks? They would just be like "oh well, more money for me".

At 9/4/03 01:11 AM, Adept_Omega wrote: One that comes to mind right away is probably that one in Romans by Saint Paul? That's another popular anti-gay argument, but I have ammunition loaded up to counter that one as well if it shows up.

That would be one of them yes, and I have counterarguments aplenty for you as well, but since we're on the same side in this way, I'll put the guns away for now ;) And I'll let you handle this in house shit. Plus I've got some business to do in the upcoming days so I'm not sure I'll be online enough to carry on any religious debates.

There's something around, maybe 6 total sections that are frequently used in argument against homosexuality, and even a number of those are extremely contrived attempts to twist a body of text a certain way -- bah, I'll not get into that now. I'm just curious what his response will be -- if he bothers to respond. Thanks for the support, though. =)

No prob. Just wish you weren't fighting yourself here.

PS: Interesting view on the passage, I hadn't heard that argument before either. I suppose there is some merit to such an interpretation, ne?

I get into a lot of debates, if there is an argument on a biblical matter, I've heard it. :P

At 9/3/03 04:20 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Perhaps I will check my spelling before I finish so others dont think Im stupid, maybe capitals will help too. No promises on grammar.

It's never been a big deal to me, but sadly enough people to judge pretty quick when it comes to that shit. And decent spelling and grammar does make it easier to read if nothing else ;)

I don't think that girl has any fat on her body other than maybe a little in the chest area, what the hell are you people babbling about?

At 9/4/03 02:34 AM, Dobio wrote: BattyRoy, just tell me you didn't have your hands in your pants when you wrote that...

Hey I'm a good typer, but I'm not that good :P