CreateDebate


WinstonC's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of WinstonC's arguments, looking across every debate.
2 points

The problem is that any and all on the right seem to be immediately called alt right.

Yeah, it's in part due to the confusing history of the term and in part due to a desire to tarnish regular conservatives as extremists.

So which right wing positions are mainstream enough that you aren’t automatically called a Nazi for having them?

Any position that isn't related to white nationalism. Of course, calling political opponents "fascists" and "Nazis" is a useful tactic to cause people to dismiss opposing ideas without actually engaging with them.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

"a place where large numbers of people (such as...) are detained or confined under armed guard"

That is a perfect description of any prison. If we are defining concentration camps as places of detention, concentration camps are necessary for western society.

1 point

Very few people actually understand the term "alt-right". There are a lot of reasons for this, one of which being the vagueness of the term's meaning "alternative right". This sounds like a name for any brand of conservatism that isn't the mainstream.

Two very different factions took it to mean completely different things. The white nationalists (who originally coined the term in 2010) took it to mean their alternative to the mainstream right wing. Other non-mainstream conservatives, on the other hand, took it to mean anything on the right that wasn't regular party Republicanism.

Now, the non-mainstream conservatives who weren't white supremacists quickly abandoned the label when they found what it originally meant. Nobody wanted to be associated with Richard Spencer's white nationalists. As a result, Spencer's definition of alt-right was put forth as the correct usage, so that alternative conservatives would not be grouped with Spencer's ilk. At the same time, these non-mainstream conservatives argued strongly that they were not to be labeled "alt-right" as it now had a very discrete meaning: white nationalism.

However, the regular non-mainstream conservatives are the ones who popularized the term, despite the white nationalist Richard Spencer coining it. As such, it has become associated with people who aren't extremists. This confusion is then magnified due to the corporate media using both definitions simultaneously whenever it suits them. Regular alternative right-wing figures are called alt-right, while simultaneously alt-right is called white nationalist. This means that they can call any right-wing alternative figures white nationalists by proxy.

1 point

It's been around 30 years since the media were told that publishing the names of school shooters creates copycat shooters. This is because it gives them infamy, which is exactly what these people want. Of course, the corporate media doesn't care about reducing school shootings and to this day always publishes their names.

1 point

To defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after the crime has taken place; when it is too late. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible. Studies suggest 2 million crimes are prevented annually by firearms, of which 200k are rapes (1,2). Compared with the 20k annual homicides by gun, this seems to me a worthy tradeoff (3).

Sources:

(1) http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed Resistance to Crime- The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defe.pdf

(2) www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip

(3) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

(You need to copy and paste sources 1 and 2 for them to work).

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

".. a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard..

Technically regular prisons are concentration camps under such a broad definition. In which case, concentration camps are not inherently bad things.

1 point

Yeah, I wonder if they were thinking about not contaminating the moon back then. Then again, there would have been bacteria released when they opened the doors.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I'm confused, you think I want to blur the line between the moderate and extremist right because this would be of benefit to me? Does that mean that you think I'm a right wing extremist? Of course I distinguish, for example, between the extremist right that want to kill all whites or throw gays from buildings and regular conservatives.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Being rich requires the existence of poor people because it is a relative, not an absolute, term.

Interesting, I think of it as absolute. For instance, the fact that I don't have to worry about food, shelter, clothing etc. and also have a multitude of luxuries at my disposal makes me consider myself rich. I don't look at the guy making more than me and feel poor.

Therefore, since the gap between rich and poor is increasing, one can reasonably conclude (without any data) that you are distorting factual reality for the sake of ideology.

OK, so then can we distinguish between inequality and wealth?

you illustrate how wages and personal wealth has increased on average, but you steer well clear of explaining the effect inflation has had on the price of goods and services over time

You probably don't remember this but I'm against central banking and fiat currency which are the drivers of inflation. Note also that such increases are in terms of purchasing power, which means inflation is accounted for (1).

you illustrate how wages and personal wealth has increased on average, but you steer well clear of explaining the effect inflation has had on the price of goods and services over time, and indeed of explaining how averages even work in the first place! If there are ten of us and one of us earns a million bucks a year while the other 9 earn nothing, the average wage between us is 100,000 per year.

Well actually, my source demonstrated that there were less people in extreme poverty, since I imagined that demographic would be more of interest to you for the reason you are giving here.

Sources:

(1) https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

No, it's to distinguish between the radical and moderate left. Most left wingers aren't radical.

1 point

Corporate media (both sides) are propagandists for the most part, though this isn't news to anyone that's been paying attention. Thankfully, for almost every corporate media article there is an avalanche of independent media rebuttals.

1 point

They left a flag. Or do you mean literal shit? I don't quite know if defecating on the moon through a suit would work, though I bet someone would have done it if it's possible.

1 point

Freedom of speech.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

In regards to the EU or in regards to Britain? Corbyn has to support the EU because the radical left (who are a large base of his support) are largely rabidly pro-EU. It's very interesting how the radicals were previously anti-EU due to opposition to corporate influence and due to a lack of democratic representation and accountability. I suppose this is because the new doctrine holds that reducing immigration is for some reason a cardinal sin. This, once again, is very strange since the left should be looking to increase wages, which decreasing immigration does (1). The availability of surplus labour depresses wages and makes for a power dynamic that favors the employer. This also allows employers to get away with zero hour contracts and similar exploitation: because if you don't accept the terms someone else will.

Sources:

(1) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/22/uk-pay-growth-employment-weekly-earnings

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
2 points

It would appear that on average everyone is getting richer, if you look at the data (1). In any case, is it inherently evil for a rich man to become richer?

Sources:

(1) https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/world-bank-global-poverty-rate-drops-to- record-low.html

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

So capitalism isn't a system of the private ownership of property (e.g. the means of production) and the free exchange of goods and services?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

it does not dictate our sovereignty.

Sovereignty means not being dictated to from above from another entity; it means full autonomy. The EU dictates to it's member states from above.

1 point

It's interesting that this would be debated in school since saying one sex is better than another is sexist. I don't particularly care but "Blacks vs whites, who is better?" just doesn't seem like a likely school debate topic.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I didn't create this debate, though 5/6 isn't bad.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

"Love thy neighbour" applies only to humans, right?

Also, there are things in the Bible about treating animals well, for example Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 22:4.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

The costs are astronomically larger than in any socialized single-payer system.

There is a way to address the problem of health providers having all the power in the consumer relationship without a single-payer system. Obama first tabled the suggestion of a "Public Option" before "Single-payer" and what was eventually settled for (which gave the U.S. health insurance companies more power by the way - because now legally everyone has to have coverage in the U.S.). What do you think about the idea of a "Public Option"; a government run health insurance provider with the power of collective bargaining and the ability to compete with price gouging insurance companies in order to keep their prices down.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
0 points

You asked what I would have done differently in Jesus’s shoes. I’m saying that I would have not said those things which are properly ignored and I would have added those things we have injected into interpretation, such as reason.

I was making the argument that since complex systems are so difficult to understand, while you may think your intervention would be better you have no way to know if it actually would have been.

Our elevated regard for humans depends on them being human. That’s not unconditional.

Jesus was only referring to humans though. So it's unconditional love for humans.

As awful as it is to consider the ending of a human life, someone needs disregard such empathy and do just that, in order to preserve human life. I don’t believe this position is consistent with unconditional love.

You can kill someone despite loving them on some level.

There are various views within Islam and not all inconsistency with western civ values.

Not sure exactly what you're saying here but I'm referring to the fact that Islam is so totalitarian (e.g. pray 5 times a day) and the fact that it calls for theocracy. This means anything similar to western civilization that might spring out of an area with such an ideology would be despite it, not because of it.

In Matthew 5:17 through 20, Jesus maintains the validity of the Old Testament, and stated that it is Law until the end. Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.

He said he didn't "come to abolish the Law or the Prophets". Nonetheless, Christianity was not just for the Jewish state of Israel (see below). Linking back to the idea that God punished whole cities, since he didn't destroy every single city that wasn't Jewish it still doesn't follow that everywhere should be compelled to follow OT law. Further, these cities were either Jewish (under his theocratic rule) or completely debauched (e.g. Sodom). Note also that in Sodom God even said he would spare it if Abraham could find even 10 righteous people there.

Paul expanded Christianity to include Gentiles.

No, Jesus did that. Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Interestingly, he didn't mention to teach gentiles the OT here, only his teachings.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

The reason I said that is because you aren't independent if you are a part of the EU. I personally don't mind if the North wants to secede, I'm all for people being governed more locally.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

All I hear at this point is...

Everything you quoted me saying there is factually accurate and comes from my own independent inquiry into the workings of the EU parliamentary system. Furthermore, I hate the conservatives and have never voted for them even once, so good luck with the argument of guilt by association there, followed by a string of straw men, things I don't agree with and slurs against minorities.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

How many newborns have to test positive for meth, cocaine, or heroin before the state can say “you’re not going to do that to any more new borns”? It cuts against my general sensibilities, but some people need to be sterilized.

It's sad to say but in such a case where someone repeatedly gives birth to drug addicted children, or for that matter HIV positive children, this is actually true.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Whatever happened to the desire for the Irish to be independent and self-determining?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Not different than how the PM appoints various cabinet ministers, except that rather than one person (a PM) appointing them

The cabinet are made up of elected MPs. The unelected EU commission write the laws, whereas the directly elected commons write the laws in the Westminster system. The EU commission does not represent the people and has no accountability to the people. The people elect MPs to represent them and the MPs are accountable to the electorate.

an entire swathe of UK MEP's appoints one person to represent the UK on the Commission.

Untrue, this is done by the EU council. 50% of the EU Parliament must vote to consent to the commission as a whole, but they don't appoint them.

Much more so than a hereditary House of Lords that the PM and Queen decide upon.

I already noted the problems with the House of Lords and that I would reform it. Why are you fine with appointing the commission but not the Lords? Having one layer of unelected bureaucracy (House of Lords) is better than two layers (House of Lords and EU Commission).

Add to this the fact that the Commissioner for each country has obligations to their country

What obligations? In any case there is no obligation to the people, for they do nor represent them and are not accountable to them, unlike in representative democracy.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

European MEP's are elected

The unelected commission writes legislation, MEPs can merely approve, reject or amend said legislation. In other words, it would be like if in our UK system the House of Commons was appointed and we elected the House of Lords. Now, one can rightly criticize our UK House of Lords, and reform would be good, however in the case of the EU we cannot even elect people to reform the EU commission. This is because our elected MEPs cannot propose legislation.

2 points

The more I have tried to convince people, or think of ways to change the system

There are co-operatives that exist, so if you want to own a piece of where you work you can join one (e.g The Co-operative Group). You could also save some money and create your own co-operative. Leading by example is the only way to lead; "Demonstrate, do not explicate".

Pair this with being relatively poor

This is hard pill to swallow, but you should sort your own life out before you save others. You should be capable of solving smaller problems (your financial situation) before you move onto bigger ones (the fate of 7Bn people). As you solve smaller problems your field of competency will increase and eventually you may even have the competence to change the world.

Why should I focus on creating something meaningful when I could focus on merely making profit and be uplifted?

There's no reason that you can't figure out a way to do both. Do something meaningful that can be monetized. There are lots of problems and tasks to be done in the world that would make things better and people are generally willing to pay for things that make their lives better. For example, if you got a job as a street cleaner you are actually helping people by making sure we don't all live in a mound of rubbish. Now, I'm sure such a job is far below your station but there is something fitting out there that you personally can do.

humanity goes extinct anyway regardless of what I do

I wouldn't worry about that, historically it's usually the thing we aren't worried about that gets us.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

A poverty stricken Western Civ would be less charitable, even if more in Christian-like.

All I'm saying here is that we needed such altruistic ideas to be injected into our market of ideas.

But it is a more literal interpretation

Are the literal words more important than their intent? The intent was to tell his followers to pay taxes to the secular state.

Yes we do, because that’s what we did. That’s been my point.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

If the conditional love overrides the unconditional love, as I believe it should, then what you have is not unconditional love... I don’t unconditionally love my family. If my brother turned into a Mao, I would not love him.

I'm amazed that you don't possess such a concept. How about the fact that we hold humans in regard because they are human? Could that not be described as a sort of unconditional love? Once again, in my mind conditional love is separate; on top of unconditional love.

(regarding inherent human value) I believe it comes from a logical empathetic extension of one’s self-evaluation recognized in the person of another.

There is truth to what you're saying. However, just because something appears self evident post-facto doesn't mean it was self-evident before. I recall as a child doing nasty things to other children without thinking and having to be reminded to empathize with them: "You wouldn't like it if they did it to you".

Nowhere else had Aristotle, Plato, Lucretius (The Swerve is a good read), etc.

True, the argument cuts both ways. I'm actually currently reading Lucretius' "the way things are".

If Arab cultures hadn’t decided to place faith above reason, you and I may be discussing whether Western Civ would have made it without Muhammad, rather than Jesus.

To be fair though, Islam is far more totalitarian than Christianity, not to mention inherently political. As such, I'd argue that what Arab cultures did was completely to be expected.

It is even filled with examples of god punishing whole communities for the sinfulness of it’s inhabitants. Thus, a faithful state is completely justified in compelling citizens to adhere to the word of god.

The Old Testament applies to Jews, and does indeed suggest a theocratic state. There's nothing in there that suggests Gentiles need to follow the Old Testament.

But that doesn’t mean it is necessarily contemptable when someone, gauging the risk too high or their capability to low, declines to step up.

I can agree with that. Of course some people will wrongly make such judgements though, or selfishly refuse to help others at very little or no cost to themselves.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

It would be a problem for the falsely accused. Rape is pretty difficult to prove, especially if the report is false. The standard for guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

It's also exceptionally difficult to prove something conclusively false, and even in cases where things later are proven false the accused's life is still ruined in the meanwhile.

Whether the report is true or false, if it regards an abortion, we have the DNA of the father. Finding them would not be too difficult.

The sex could have been consensual, though.

But suffering is not the only consideration when determining to end a life. Indeed, in all other circumstances it is not a sufficient justification, all else being equal, even if it is a necessary consideration.

I agree, I simply don't believe that it's a good idea to create too many children that other people will have to care for, be that through adoption or welfare. Allowing abortion to some degree reduces the number of children that other people have to support. This means that we can look after those unwanted children who aren't aborted better because proportionally we have more adoptive parents and resources available. Note also that children raised in poverty and/or in single parent homes have far poorer outcomes later in life. For these reasons, I view abortion as a necessary evil. What are your thoughts on abortion?

1 point

Corbyn doesn't like the EU either (1). He would have come out as pro-leave if it wasn't political suicide.

Sources:

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTvsqUphMc

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

First because he didn’t save anyone by his death.

Not if the Bible is true, though, right?

thus suicide missions would remain the least common act of heroism.

Yet you seem to accept it is an act of heroism, regardless.

That’s no reason to give my coat to a stranger

What if the reason that western civilizations are so charitable is because of that idea underpinning our philosophy? Now, I can completely accept that one can be too charitable, however perhaps back then we were not generous enough.

But then you have the guy who is supposed to get everyone into heaven, pointing not to villainous murderers, rapists, pillagers, and thieves, but rather pointing to the rich.

I'm pretty sure he pointed to them too.

I wouldn’t have promoted state ownership of wealth.

I don't believe that was his intent in that passage.

I would have promoted those philosophical values that Christian cultures internalized from Greeks and Romans which stifled the development of Christianity’s more socialistic teachings.

We have no idea what that would look like so I wouldn't be so quick to declare that if you were in Jesus' shoes things would be better 2000 years later. If we were to assume that Jesus was in fact God, perhaps he was utilizing the Hegelian dialectic (thesis and antithesis create a synthesis) and knew that this would be the result.

If you hold the villain equal to the hero, who benefits? If you love without condition both the beautiful and the contemptible, who do you profit?

You're misinterpreting what unconditional love means. Loving everyone unconditionally does not mean that you do not also have conditional love on top of that. Perhaps a good example would be how you unconditionally love your family despite at times hating them, or merely not liking them. This is arguably where our idea of valuing all human life (a novel idea at the time) comes from.

There are very good values held by many Christians. Then again there are awful values held by Christians.

I'd say that the Christian ideas, rather than the Christians themselves, is what was important.

I’m not sure that we couldn’t have arrived at western civilization without Jesus. I find his example quite disagreeable.

Perhaps we would have, but nowhere else did, which is interesting.

Jesus is supposed to have chosen his fate, but none of his persecutors seemed to think so.

An individual spreading controversial ideas at the time was bound to be killed if such ideas were perceived to be a threat to the state. The story of the revolutionary thinker drawing the state's wrath is far older than Jesus, take Socrates for instance.

Physically saving oneself from a bloodthirsty mob requires a bit more.

The example you gave was of them being persuaded to be sacrificed willingly. If they are forcing you to be sacrificed then you don't have a choice so it's not relevant.

The word of god is hardly advice from a kindly stranger, to be accepted or rejected with equal import.

Yes but nonetheless you have the free will to take that advice. Furthermore, it never says that to not do so is a sin.

Only if he was lying to get out of a trap, in which case he is not advocating a separation of church and state.

Saying "pay your taxes to the secular state" seems to suggest a separation.

I haven’t described that.

You were talking about the state forcing people to give their property away.

Jesus says you should give to all who ask of you...So you should give love, deed, and property to those who hate and take and you should expect nothing in return.

I certainly agree that such ideas can be taken too far and can be pathological. I would also argue, however, that we are so charitable and generous because of the influence of such doctrines on western philosophy.

I agree that expanding ones sphere of influence to do good is advisable. I find that a person will derive a greater sense of personal significance, satisfaction, and meaning by extending good will and even property to strangers without expectation of repayment.

Does this blur the altruist/egoist line? It seems to me that altruism, if one is capable of it, greatly serves the self.

The courageous person who risks harm to save strangers is admirable, but the person who keeps their safe distance is not to be damned for it.

It depends on what you mean by damned. In my estimation stepping up to the challenge is the right thing to do, assuming capability.

Read Luke Chapter 6 Verses 20 through 35. These are part of the Sermon on the Mount.

I agree that these verses are too radical, nonetheless they helped set the philosophical stage for a more benevolent zeitgeist.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Such a rule would lead to an increase in false rape reports. Aside from the great deal of harm inflicted on the falsely accused, it would make finding the real rapists more difficult.

An abortion limit of 14 weeks, however, allows abortion when necessary while balancing against the suffering of the foetus. After all, the foetus doesn't have any brain activity until 14 weeks.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

It's pretty difficult to conclusively prove an allegation false. Moreover, the accused's life is usually ruined by the allegation; losing their job, partner, friends and so on.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

How are you defining capitalism?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Does the suffering of the foetus matter less than the suffering of a newborn? A 9 month old foetus is identical to a newborn and it's not acceptable to kill them under any circumstances, is it? Look, if you make me choose between no abortions and abortions up to birth I won't be on your side.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
2 points

There is no comparison between a sperm and a thinking, feeling 9 month foetus. My line in the sand is brain activity at 14 weeks and, given that pregnancy causes the cessation of menstruation, any regular woman will know they are pregnant before that point.

Abortion at ANY time is taking a life. The REAL question WITHOUT all the fluff, is does a women have that right.

Woah, wait, are you saying you support 9 month abortions? I don't see any difference in the value of the life of a 9 month baby inside or outside of the womb.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

If she says rape, she'll have to have someone to accuse

Aren't false rape accusations a major problem at the moment?

If abortions go down 99%, but false rape claims go up .5%, that's a net win.

I think reducing abortions is great, particularly given the current blasé attitude towards it. It's frankly disgusting how some people view an 8 month old baby as "a bundle of cells". However I do think that if done sufficiently early it can be better than bringing a child into the world in some circumstances. 14 weeks is when their brain impulses start to fire (1) and so up until then I see abortion as far less egregious than after that point.

Sources:

(1) https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-by-week

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

While I am pro-abortion up to around 3-4months I don't agree that it's simply a matter of controlling her own body. The foetus is a life too and in fact it's experiences in the womb (e.g. auditory) shape it's preferences and behaviour (1).

Sources:

(1) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030513080440.htm

1 point

We've just had the European parliament elections and the results will be in tomorrow. A new party formed a few weeks ago in protest to how Brexit hasn't been delivered; the "Brexit party". According to the polls it is going to get more votes than the main 2 parties combined.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I was thinking about the "rape exception" the other day. I'd expect this to cause some pregnant women to file false police reports of rape in order to get an abortion.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I don't agree, I believe that slowly but surely more moderate voices are winning out. In the U.K., for example, when the far-left assaults pro-Brexit politicians with milkshakes it just makes them look like they can't win the argument.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

It's only 57secs long. The video shows the origin of the recent tactic of smearing opponents to the radical left as racist/fascist.

1 point

What option would that be?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

What is a capitalist system and is capitalism inherently evil?

1 point

Her negotiation strategy was to approach Brussells backwards with her pants down. Perhaps now we can actually make some progress with leaving the EU.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I am not aware of any "establishment narrative" that Assange is a Russian agent

Google the words "Russia" and "Wikileaks" and you will find a cornucopia of articles, here are the first 4 results (1,2,3,4).

or indeed who you are even referring to by "the establishment"

You are well aware of Chomsky's propaganda model of the press.

Sources:

(1) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/18/wikileaks-russias-useful-idiot-its-agent-influence/

(2) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/11/wikileaks-trump-mueller-roger-stone-jerome-corsi/576940/

(3) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-wikileaks-become-associated-with-russia/

(4) https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/01/25/the-wikileaks-russia-connection/

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Me: "I pay a lot more money into the NHS than I would for private healthcare."

You: You pay nothing into the NHS, moron. You pay tax and the government decides how much money the NHS gets.

Obvious troll is obvious. You can calculate how much of your money is spent on the NHS with some simple math.

1 point

I agree that Trump is wrong to do this. I'm curious though, what happened to the establishment narrative that Assange is a Russian agent?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
0 points

I personally am somewhat torn on this issue because I don't want people to not get treated because they have no coverage. On the other hand I pay a lot more money into the NHS than I would for private healthcare. I then receive the same service as someone who pays nothing, at a price several times greater than a service where I would be seen and treated instantly and with a higher quality of care.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

It would not be unreasonable for a person to feel justified in enforcing the all the perceived dictates of god, just as surely as we enforce the commandment not to murder.

There are people like that for every religion. As for enforcing the commandment to not murder this is to protect the human's right to life. We thankfully don't live in theocracies.

In situations where it is the goal (accepting death to save ones child), it is reasonable only insofar as one would rather not live in a world where such a high value is destroyed

Can this not apply to Jesus?

But generally, hero’s don’t face hazard with the intention of self-sacrifice.

I recall giving an example of tyrants that were opposed by people who knew that they would be killed but who felt it worth the sacrifice. An example I greatly admire of this is Jing Ke who attempted a suicide mission for his people, to assassinate the king of Qin. Furthermore, in war soldiers are routinely called upon to take such missions; it's absolutely necessary for war. Guarding the retreat, for example, is sometimes known to be a death sentence.

It is not love and respect that commands I give my coat to the beggar

If you are capable of shouldering someone else's burden, you will find that doing so brings your life great meaning. Of course, you must be capable of shouldering your own burden first. Of course, you shouldn't help anyone too much so that they become dependent on you.

It’s not love or respect that illustrates an impossible situation (camel through a needle) as an analogy for a rich man getting into heaven (as if all means of wealth are equal).

As far as I know, back then not only was it harder to get rich, but also the rich weren't very philanthropic. So it might have been a good idea to make the rich people of the time doubt their righteousness.

What love is it that drives a man to willingly be tortured by corrupt local politicians, when he can literally heal the sick, raise the dead, and turn wicked hearts to righteousness?

Well assuming it's all true, it certainly seems to have had a net positive effect. Liberalism has deep Christian philosophical roots, for example. If you were Jesus, with these powers, what would you have done to achieve a better result and how do you know those actions would have achieved a better result?

There is little good to be derived from the story of Jesus as is.

In my estimation he forwarded positive, egalitarian, pro-social messages. The concept of unconditionally loving everyone is a good example of this, and was rather novel at the time. The same goes for the idea of equality under God.

Jesus actually died to save no one. No one lived on because he was on that cross.

How do you know that his intention wasn't to make the world a better place by promoting his ideas? We both agree, after all, that Christianity has had a net positive effect on western philosophy, do we not?

If a tribe of cannibals wanted to throw virgin you into a volcano to appease the mountain god, the Jesus thing to do would be to accept it, for the good of the cannibals.

If it were me in that situation I would ask "Why don't you do it instead?" I can't really take such a hypothetical seriously because the sacrifice is so obviously being abused. I also see a difference in a group pressuring someone to do something and someone choosing on their own to voluntarily sacrifice their time, money or even life.

The courageous and moral thing to do would be to kill as many of this vicious enemy as needed (maybe more) to escape back to loved ones.

All that requires is for the person being sacrificed to not be an idiot that believes everything they are told.

When god says the right hands for your coat are the poor mans, that coat is owed as surely as a debt.

Saying "You should give money to X charity" is not the same as "X charity owns your money".

I think his intent was pretty clear when he said “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?”. It was to avoid a trap.

So then you agree that the intent isn't to advise people that all their money belongs to the state.

Nonetheless what he said to avoid a trap, which you agree is technically true, is that money belongs to the state.

I'm saying technically you're right that he said this.

You can. If you need one, just ask him for it. But then, if someone else has greater need of it, then they need merely ask and the faithful state will ensure you give it to him. It’s the coat principle, to each according to his needs.

That makes no sense, you're describing a state where nobody but the state has any property. The bible specifically says people own property and that you shouldn't steal it.

There’s a great sense of duty in North Korea.

Everyone that doesn't obey is imprisoned or worse; it's not voluntary.

I don’t find his example to be a particularly good one.

When I compare cultures with Christian influence to those without it there is a pretty strong trend. You have a good point on the "Give unto Caesar" quote (though I don't believe that to be it's intent) but otherwise it just seems to be an altruist/egoist divide. I certainly can agree altruism can often be pathological and needlessly self-sacrificing. However, I also hold the view that one should expand their spheres of influence progressively as their ability to do more good increases. To begin, one should look after themselves. As they become competent at that they should extend this care to their family, then their community and so on. Some people can only look after themselves and this is perfectly fine, in fact, if they tried to help others they would do more harm than good.

1 point

In that case, there's no reason that you shouldn't but also no reason that you should. In other words, you still can't argue that we should redistribute wealth since it's morally equivalent to not redistributing wealth.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I've heard the 4th amendment means that's OK in the U.S., but I'm no expert. Here in the U.K. we don't have any such luxury (1).

Sources:

(1) https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/16/moment-man-fined-90-hiding-face-police-facial-recognition-cameras-9571463/

1 point

The fact that taste is subjective is completely aside from the point. If there is nothing objectively right or wrong then you can't argue that, for example, the rich should give money to the poor. Why should they if it isn't the right thing to do?

1 point

I'm pretty sure they already do, at least in many places. It's bad for privacy but sadly most people have already voluntarily gave their privacy away so I don't see there being much pushback on that front.

1 point

It's because if you're white then you're a white supremacist. If you're not then you have internalized oppression.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

But morality isn't objective you retard.

If morality isn't objective then how can you argue that anyone should or shouldn't do anything?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I also agree that sometimes (note, not always) the wage gap is nonsense; men tend to carry out higher paying positions than women.

100% agreed.

What I DO agree with however, is that the pay gap MUST be bridged by providing equal opportunities for both men and women and that two people in the same position must earn equally.

Does this mean that you disapprove of "positive discrimination" hiring and promotion practices that favour women over men?

It is undeniable that cultural, societal, legal, religious and moral expectations DO NOT favour women. And this, my friends, should be addressed.

How would we go about addressing people's expectations?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Though you cannot choose to ignore gravity, you can still make choices. The law of gravity doesn’t remove the existence of choice.

Exactly, so ignoring the dictates of God is a choice, it's not like gravity. A dictate from God doesn't remove the existence of choice.

Your response to the next few quotes were along the lines of I personally think and My interpretation is. I believe this is an example of changing your interpretation to fit your worldview, rather than letting the words form your worldview.

Firstly, I'm not a Christian. Secondly, all one can do with a text is interpret and give the logical reasons for their interpretation.

I would need a link to see the context.

It's in the very long debate linked at the bottom. If I recall correctly, you were justifying acts of self-sacrifice as evolutionarily advantageous and thus in line with your conception of morality.

My description of Jesus’s sacrifice is of the greatest man dying for the sake of lesser people, so that they can live in his elevated world which they cannot earn.

One could argue the same for the sacrifices made by any great man.

If I were to willingly die (as an accepted goal) for my child, it’s because I value a world where my child exists greater than my life in a world where they don’t.

Sure, and perhaps Jesus valued a world where people by default love and respect one another.

This is not sacrifice in the sense that Jesus was sacrificed.

How so?

It would no more be theft than than when a repo man takes your car to put it in the proper hands.

That's not something you believe. Unless you want to completely do away with the idea of repaying debt? Not once in the Bible does it say the poor man owns your coat.

I’m saying that Jesus said your money is the states.

Technically true. However, do you believe the intent of this was to tell people to pay the demanded tax or to tell people to give all their money to the state?

No, coveted property merely needs to not be your property. Your neighbors wife is t his property.

If my neighbour can own an oxen why can't I?

But what about good deeds you never wanted to undertake, have no business in, and have no choice on the matter? Hey, I’m going to take your things to give them to someone more in need. If you don’t like it, consider the sacrificial example of Jesus and count yourself lucky.

That's not me doing a good deed, that's you stealing and reappropriating.

There are all manner of deeds one can be made to do out of a sense of sacrificial duty.

If you do it out of a sense of duty, rather than a mandate, it's voluntary, not forced.

But the myth we are told is that Jesus forgives our sins that we may go to heaven.

What if his example was what was necessary to save us?

...But the Bible itself is perfectly amenable to socialism...

I don't think the Bible is amenable to any ruler. If you cannot kill or steal the state can't function, socialist or otherwise.

https://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Should femalesperformdifferentrolesinthemilitaryto_males

2 points

If you don't earn something you won't value it. Perhaps more importantly in the process of earning wealth you gain skills and knowledge and grow as a person.

2 points

I'm pretty sure this practice is common among all criminal types, despite the stigma around "snitching".

1 point

For a second I thought you were saying that they put out so much spunk because they know that at least some of it will be absorbed.

1 point

You can set water alight from the tap if it's got enough natural gas in, as in some fracking areas.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

A dictate from God would be like gravity. It isn’t a choice, nor does it interfere with Free Will.

We don't have the free will to ignore gravity.

But you are told to love everyone, and also to repent.

I personally think that everyone with empathy loves everyone else on some level. As for repentance, I see not why acknowledging one's faults and wrongdoing is bad.

You are told to judge not, to remove your individual faculty of judgment.

I always interpreted that as not believing people are good or bad based on what you have seen because you are unaware of their other circumstances and why they have done that they have done.

You are told to give your coat to whom asks, forsaking individual property rights. You are told follow the example of a man who literally offered himself up as a human sacrifice to benefit lesser men, that they would be raised up to live in his realm, which they did not and cannot earn.

In our past debate you were very much touting self-sacrifice as evolutionarily advantageous due to how your family would be treated.

I base the idea that the bible was written for monarchy because terminology of monarchy is what is used in the bible. Jesus is referred to as king.

That's a weak argument, he's also called the "good shepherd", does that imply we should raise sheep? It's simply a way, in the lexicon of the time, of expressing that he has authority.

Can you call it stealing if the property is not kept for oneself? If a man asks for your coat, and I force you to give it to him per gods will, have I stolen the coat?

Yes, you have 1) stolen it and then 2) given it away. If the bible had some clause about stealing for the purposes of re-appropriation then I could agree.

Sure he planned it, but not before the appointed time. I gave you the Chapter. It is pretty plainly written.

I appreciate the argument you are making but noting that someone is trying to trap you does not mean that your response is untrue. Jesus submits to the state taxes in this chapter and encourages others to do the same.

I didn’t think I presented his position as him lying.

What, in your estimation, is his position then?

“Thou shalt not covet” is a matter of personal emotional attachment, not a matter of property. It sounds more like Stoic philosophy than like political economy.

For you to be able to covet thy neighbour's oxen your neighbour must own the oxen. Something that is owned is private property.

Only be deriving no sense of satisfaction on any level can an act be said to be selfless.

I don't think this is possible; on some level good deeds will always be satisfying.

Altruism is Jesus, the best who ever was, dying for the sake of his own vicious torturers because “they know not what they do”.

In a past debate we spoke of how dying well is sometimes better than living miserably. Why is he not acting on a desire to create a world where people care more for each other and treat each other better?

2 points

As opposed to "believing whites are superior to other races and/or acting in a way intended to harm other races due to their race".

It's sad that the few play these cynical power games redefining words and spreading lies. The multitudes that they whip up into a hate filled frenzy against Jewish "Nazis" and black "white supremacists" are almost as much the victims as those targeted.

It's been years since it started now and I still can't believe the calls for and excuses for political violence that are threatening the very stability of western liberal democracy. This week in the UK, a controversial MEP candidate was assaulted and fought back. He was portrayed as the villain for doing so by the majority of our mainstream media.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

If it’s a dictate from god, it’s not voluntary, especially not if god’s dictates are encoded in the laws of the state.

God's dictates are voluntary, otherwise we wouldn't have free will. Unlike Islam, for example, there is no suggestion that the church should be the state, in fact there are suggestions to the opposite, such as the taxes line we discussed.

Recognizing the importance of others, while reiterating the sinful nature of you, is not empathetic. It’s destructive of the individual.

Wouldn't that be the sinful nature of everyone? I don't understand how acceptance of the flaws inherent to one's being is destructive of the individual. Also, recognizing the importance of others is something we all do.

Christian cultures that rediscovered, and incorporated pre-Christian philosophies.

Oh I certainly wouldn't dismiss such influences, particularly from ancient Greece.

The Bible isn’t written for any kind of republic, nor any sense of democracy. The Bible is written for monarchy.

On what do you base this?

If you know that your god commanded that rich man to give that poor man his coat, will you be the apathetic bystander who allows evil to persist?

The Bible also says "thou shalt not steal".

Any attempt on the part of Jesus to rebel against Rome would have been a tactical error, he would have lost and we wouldn’t have the story today.

Probably true, though not necessarily. Yet if Jesus' aim was to establish a theocracy I don't see any indications that this was the case, unlike in Islam, for example.

The question of taxation was meant as s trap to get Jesus in trouble with Roman authorities. Jesus saw that it was a trap and asked to see a coin.

Given that Jesus is arrested in Matthew 26 it didn't buy him much time. I don't see him compromising his principles for a short respite, given that he planned to die for his beliefs. I could be wrong though and he lied to save his skin for some purpose (perhaps it was deeply important that the last supper occurred, for instance).

Is it not socialist to say that your money is not yours?

Do you believe that this was the intent of what he was saying? The whole "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's oxen" implies ownership, for example.

For about 1200 years there was only one Christian church and it somewhat disagreed with you.

That's the nature of power, it corrupts. Being so powerful it's no surprise the Church became deeply corrupt. It also completely ignored the whole poverty prescript among other things. The Roman Catholic Church also had many inventions; there's nothing in the bible about priestly celibacy, sabbath is Saturday etc.

If altruism is “the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others”, then no. Selflessness is collectivism.

Does this apply for small selfless acts like giving to charity? Do you always weigh up whether a good deed will benefit you before choosing to do it or not?

1 point

Wait, did someone believe that the SPLC weren't left wing activists?

1 point

Love thy neighbour is "individualist" to you, is it? Feeding the five thousand?

Is altruism the same as collectivism?

It is easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven?

That's a call to charity. It's probably also an indictment on how many people become rich through evil deeds.

Even Jesus himself was surrounded by a cult following of disciples.

So you can't be individualist if you're part of a group?

One does not need to be an "individualist" to believe in separate and/or distinct human personalities and values.

I never made that argument. The contrast between individualism and collectivism is whether more emphasis is placed on the group or on the individual as the component part of the group.

Furthermore, if you are going to reference somebody else's argument then quote that argument directly so we can read it for ourselves.

This book gives a good overview (1). It's a very commonly made argument, given that emphasis on the individual rather than the group is a phenomenon which first emerged in Christian cultures.

Then obviously you don't fucking understand socialism, do you? Socialists don't reduce the wealth before they share it equally.

I was talking in practice, not in theory. Ideas can work great in theory but not at all in reality.

Sources:

(1) http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674979888

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Christianity offers all kinds of principles of good works, most often focused around altruistic concerns or acts... With your private property you are directed to give a percentage to the church, give a poor man your coat, relinquish part of your crop, and be careful not to acquire too much lest it be too difficult to get into heaven.

I don't see being voluntarily benevolent as collectivist.

Private property was a concept before Christianity.

My point was that the concept of private property is both capitalist and individualist.

Most often it appears that the Bible is trying to illustrate the importance of other individuals, such as the poor and downtrodden...

Recognizing the importance of other individuals isn't collectivist, it's empathetic.

I believe it is commerce which drew Christians and Jews more toward the individualist aspect of their religions, though there is more stated emphasis on community in the texts.

I can't say if this is true either way, but it stands aside from the point that Christian cultures created the western individualistic cultures we have today.

Socialism ensures sharing and giving for the good of the whole. This is in line with biblical concerns for the poor, charity, and suspicions of wealth profit. While these ideas are not the best way of achieving supposed goals, they are perfectly in line with both Christianity and with Socialism.

While Christianity says to "give the poor man your coat" as you gave as an example earlier, it does not say to steal the rich man's coat and give it to the poor man.

Caesar wasn’t a Christian. Rome was “other” than the Christian community, as illustrated in revelations. But when the state actually is the church, and there is no powerful “other” who requires his dues rendered, then we can all render unto god (god’s church) that which is god’s.

This quote was regarding a question of rebelling against the Roman state by not paying taxes. Jesus asked his followers to cooperate with the state rather than overthrow it, peacefully or otherwise. So why is it that Jesus didn't try to stir up a revolution against the Roman state and impose a theocracy? Moreover, the full quote is "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." This implies that taxes don't belong to God. There is no qualifier "but if we get rid of Caesar then we can give God everything".

If you remove god from the church, but keep the altruistic dictates, then the “church” can begin to direct your resources toward the good of the whole, outlined in 5 year plans.

I don't see any suggestion that this should be done, even if it's theoretically possible. Further, The Christian conception of life is that it is a test of the individual's character. This is why we have free will and why evil exists. As such, if the state were to get rid of all opportunity for charity, there is less opportunity for individuals to do good deeds to prove their character.

I agree that there is much to be found in the Bible that lends itself toward individualism. But I also believe there is more in there for the opposite.

Do you draw any distinction between altruism and collectivism?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Does this mean that all sin should be illegal?

1 point

Hypocrite! So Muslims can kill gays, no problem, but every Christian is to blame? Do or do not live by the Bible, there is no try.

I never said that Muslims can kill gays without problem, I'm simply pointing out that there are similar issues in the Christian texts.

1 point

Ahead of who?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

what created "God"? If something can't appear out of nothingness, neither can "God".

We know that our universe wasn't eternal. We don't know if an entity that could be referred to as "God" isn't eternal.

2 points

"Confederate general Lee was a great general"

If I said that Hitler was a great public speaker does that make me a Nazi? Keep making reaches like this and if Trump actually says something damning nobody will pay attention, as with the boy who cried wolf.

1 point

ISIS don't have any territory anymore (1). Do we have to kill every single ISIS member for them to be declared defeated? When we won WWII, some Nazis escaped to Argentina, and yet we still declared that the Nazis had been defeated, were we wrong to make that claim?

Sources:

(1) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47678157

0 points

Isn't Christianity too individualist to be socialist? Private property rights is an individualist concept, after all. Many scholars have made the case that individualism's roots ultimately stem from the Christian idea that there is incalculable intrinsic value to every human. This is supported by the fact that the most individualistic cultures have Christian roots.

Christianity lends more support to Socialism than Capitalism on a number of issues including: poverty, material wealth, charity, and profit/personal gain.

That assumes that socialism is the best way of achieving the implicit aim of charity and sharing wealth which is reducing human suffering. It seems to me that socialism merely ensures that everyone is poor, except perhaps those in the inevitably emergent ruling class.

Both the left and the right advocate the force of law to codify their pet agendas, rendering useless/hypocritical any argument from the right that charity should not be forced.

I would say that while "the right" overlaps with Christianity, they are still separate groupings. In fact, the whole "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is suggestive of a separation of church and state.

1 point

When you quoted me saying there are issues with uncontrolled immigration does this mean you don't agree that there are?

I'm happy to welcome newcomers to the US, and they're happy to be in a great city.. So, I'm not sure who you think you're punishing..

If you welcomed everyone who wanted to come in the world you would find that it would degrade pretty quickly. Social services couldn't run, house prices would soar, unemployment would be at record levels and homelessness would be epidemic.

The people coming here now are refugees.. They're NOT seeking work.. They're seeking a safe place to raise their family's..

Legitimate refugees legally have to be accepted in the countries that border their nation.

But, Trump isn't doing that.. He's not doing anything close to that.. He's simply closing the door.. "We're full", he says.. "Go away", he says.

Do you have a source for the claim that Trump isn't taking in refugees that he is legally obligated to? Surely you acknowledge that the majority of illegal immigrants are not legitimate refugees?

2 points

If abolishing slavery is socialism then all western capitalist democracies are socialist.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

We on the Right want our nation to get back to a time when speaking out against irresponsible behavior is a good thing to do as we try to stop the cycle of broken families and lives. I'm talking speaking out, NOT MORAL LAWS!

That's fine by me.

It's like they hate the notion of morality and explains their disdain for Bible believing Christians.

There is definitely some of this coming from the left, sure.

1 point

Proposing to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities was absolute genius. There was no way for them to win, either they acknowledge that there are issues with uncontrolled immigration or they let their cities be ruined and prove that there are issues with uncontrolled immigration.

1 point

There were more than 11,000 deaths as a result of murder or manslaughter involving a firearm in 2016.

There are an estimated 2 million crimes prevented annually by firearms in the U.S. (1,2), including 200k rapes.

Sources:

(1) http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed Resistance to Crime- The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defe.pdf

(2) www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip

1 point

You are doing the exact same thing as every other Progressive.

I'm not a progressive. The label that would fit me best is libertarian.

You are trying to imply that those on the Right want to take away a person's right to live as he chooses.

So you do believe people have the right to, that's good we don't have any disagreement then. We were talking past each other.

We are trying to improve our nation by speaking out on irresponsible behavior that harms MILLIONS of people.

I agree that casual sex is irresponsible, especially if unprotected.

They want a culture of no fault anything goes depravity, with no one saying a thing about it.

Well I don't. My whole contention was that adults have the right to engage in depravity that only harms the willing participants. If God gave us the free will to sin, I don't see why the government should step in and take that free will away when nobody else is bring harmed.

2 points

Of course we should treat people as equals. This means that companies shouldn't be engaged in "positive discrimination" hiring and promotion practices where they discriminate against males in favour of females.

1 point

I do believe that some "safety net" is a good idea. However it is possible that by acting compassionately we can make things worse, particularly when thinking long term.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

I can agree that those who challenge the establishment aren't promoted, and in fact are often suppressed.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

And that is exactly why you are often rewarded specifically for being stupid in capitalism.

He's rewarded specifically for having broad appeal (intelligence doesn't have broad appeal sadly). I imagine incredibly aggressive marketing played a role too.

Many people who are reasonably intelligent are socialists, but almost all top-tier geniuses are socialists.

I agree with the first point, yet your second point would require a citation.

There has never been any form of capitalism other than plutocracy except for very small, isolated cases that never last. This is not just the current iteration, what you are seeing is the norm for capitalism.

This is because the current iteration of capitalism is permissive of legal bribery of politicians, and political campaigns need financing. Change that and the wealthy don't rule, for how could they rule without any hold over politicians?

Capitalism was created by wealthy people who already had wealth

The idea of free exchange and private property isn't anything but natural. Even under monarchism and feudalism people owned property and could freely trade.

The thing about all those things you mentioned is that your ability to profit from them depends on how much profit you already have.

You mean because wealth begets wealth?

How can there be free exchange when wealth essentially determines the level of freedom you have?

How does it? What freedoms do the wealthy enjoy that the poor don't?

What good are property rights if they allow a handful of robber-baron types to own all the important land and resources

This is why we break up monopolies. If you earn the money you can buy land and resources.

How do you "own your own labour" when you are in the working class and a large portion of the wealth you produce is stolen by someone

You choose to sell your labour to who you want for the price you negotiate.

who may or may not have worked a single day in their life and may or may not have had the money to start a business simply by inheriting wealth? Capitalism has a hidden caste system embedded deep within it. When you are handed wealth and opportunities as a result of having wealthy parents, you can start businesses and make a profit much more easily

Then their parents earned that wealth. Do you disagree with inheritance as a concept? Will you leave your children nothing?

when you are born into poverty or even into the middle class the ones who currently occupy the beorgiosie position will have you by the balls working for them 9/10 times and you will never have the chance to own your own labour.

Why? For example, you could make a YouTube channel, or start washing windows in your local area, or get a degree and give people financial advice etc. You have every opportunity to start your own business or be self-employed. Moreover, even if you choose to sell your labour, you still own it, or you wouldn't have had the option to sell it. Let me ask you this, if you had £50,000 cash how would you use it to make more money? I'm sure you will have a good answer, given how easy you believe it is to make money with money.

Socialism has only been implemented a handful of times, and it's failures in those cases are not inherent to the system itself but due to many factors which I would be happy to point out if you have any specific examples in mind.

You've proven my point. According to you, when socialism has issues it's not inherent to socialism but when capitalism has issues it's inherent to capitalism. Even when it's been clearly explained how the issues you raise could be fixed within the framework of capitalism.

Most of the time though, when a nation is called socialist, that is either a lie on the part of the ones implementing the system used to sneak in a fascist regime under the guise of a movement for equality

This seems a common thread with socialist regimes, which makes one wonder if it's something inherent to socialism. This links to (socialist) Orwell's belief that many socialists don't love the poor, they simply hate the rich.

1 point

"Lots of people" will never hear his songs unless he gets a record deal, and that will not happen unless the capitalists like him.

You mean unless record labels like him? The internet has completely changed this, there are a multitude of self-made musicians online, Lowkey being an example of this.

1 point

You are ignoring the millions of people who did not know their partner had venereal diseases, or Aids, etc.

They knew the risks and chose not to use a condom, so it's their fault. I'm sure that they wouldn't want their right to take that risk removed.

When groups of people engage in activities that are more apt to spread a killer disease, it is harmful to others such as people needing blood transfusions, wives of men who had Gay relationships, etc.

Blood taken by hospitals is now tested. As for wives of men that had gay relationships, AIDS isn't only a homosexual thing. Plenty of straight people have the same issue of catching VDs, including AIDS, from their straight partner. This is why it's so important to use protection for casual sex, and to ensure your spouse is clean if they had casual sex in the past.

1 point

I agree. I also think that mandatory child support (and welfare in general) plays into this, because it means women don't have to worry as much about the financial issue of single motherhood. If single parenthood came with a guarantee of poverty, people would avoid it like the plague, and a culture that strongly discourages it would reemerge.

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

Are you talking about welfare and mandatory child support?

1 point

Yes, Abortion harms another person and the Left supports it for any reason at any stage.

I agreed on this point.

Yes we all know that tainted blood spread Aids, and who sold this tainted blood to hospitals? Gays and drug users.

The problem there is the selling of tainted blood, not homosexuality itself which only affects consenting adults. If two consenting adults want to risk AIDS by having unprotected sex then that's their problem.

Islam supports killing Gays, women, Christians, etc. etc.

That doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to have freedom of religion. It does say that homosexuals should be stoned in the bible does it not?

Promiscuous sex leads to venereal diseases, fatherless children, tax payer support of unwed mothers, etc.

The VD only affects those who engaged in the acts. As for single parenthood, this is indeed a real problem of promiscuity. What can we do to combat single parenthood though?

WinstonC(1225) Clarified
1 point

All capitalist rappers like lil' pump do is brag about how much money they have

Once again, I'd characterize him as a vacuous pop rapper and not a capitalist rapper. Has he ever rapped about the merits of capitalism as opposed to other systems?

li'l pump... (is) the single greatest proof that capitalism is not a meritocracy.

How so? Sadly lots of people are stupid enough to love such songs.

Lowkey is a socialist as far as I know

He criticized capitalism in that link you just gave so maybe you're right, that would be a shame as he seemed reasonably intelligent. Just because the current iteration of a system is flawed doesn't mean the ideas behind capitalism: free exchange, property rights and self-ownership of one's labor are bad. This is something socialists are all too quick to point out when anybody points to socialism's historical failure, it's a complete double standard.

1 point

White people were Pagans who were dupped by the Abrahamic Desert God. I would rather live with Pagan Blacks than White sellouts.

Doesn't this mean that the content of their character is more important than the colour of their skin?

1 point

Possibly to distinguish between the religious right and the secular right, in the same way one might distinguish between the identitarian left and the individualist left. I wouldn't know though.

1 point

I'd say this is more about pop rappers vs political rappers. Is Lowkey actually socialist? I didn't hear anything about socialism in his song.


1 of 14 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]