#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Dreamers were brought here as children. Should they be deported to - who knows where?
Git 'em OUTTA here
Side Score: 134
|
America is their home
Side Score: 71
|
|
1
point
They should be deported with their parents to exactly where their parents are from. Their parents chose to break the law and enter the country illegally. If I entered into China or Russia, they wouldn't give me citizenship and then give me checks as a reward. They'd send me back or worse because I'm not supposed to be there. Shall we take all the Russian dreamers Con? Shall we welcome them to flood into Alaska for citizenship? Hell, why not the whole world? The $20 trillion in debt will be able to hold and sustain another 350 million people, surely. Surely math and economics aren't real. Surely Social Security will fix itself as we influx more and more and more people onto the dime. Screw OUR children. They don't need a future or a system that isn't bankrupt. 1)Mexico is responsible for its own people, just as Russia and China are, and even the United States. We aren't responsible for Mexico's people. Their government is. 2)Mexico doesn't let the "dreamers" cross ITS southern border into Mexico because Mexico isn't responsible for another country's people. 3)Why would we reward someone for breaking our laws and entering our country illegally, whether from Russia, China, Pakistan, or Mexico? 4)The open borders dreamer ideology is piling more and more and more people into areas which already have way too many people infrastructurally and causing crime to go through the roof due to increasing how many people are in poverty and piling them on top of one another. 5)Who's to say ISIS doesn't enter Mexico, come here and have children with their wives, and now ISIS militants are citizens making money here, living here, and planning to shoot up your children's school in 3 months? At what point do we get to enforce the law Con? Why do you think we have laws Con? Give us a magic number as to how many dreamers you think our system can support before there is no system left? Are the dreamers planning on fixing social security or continuing to give gangs more and more recruits as is what usually happens? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I like Jews. But you want to physically exterminate Muslims and blacks because you believe they are genetically inferior. Liberals hate Israel, not us. Israel has the worst human rights record of ALL UN MEMBER STATES, and it has broken more UN resolutions THAN ALL OTHER MEMBER STATES COMBINED. Only a Nazi ignores human suffering on that scale. Side: America is their home
1
point
But you want to physically exterminate Muslims and blacks because you believe they are genetically inferior. 1)Nazis didn't oppose Islam. They embraced it. 2)I have no desire to exterminate Muslims and blacks. I do see Muslims not integrating well into the West. 3)You want to exterminate us. By your standards, you yourself are a Nazi. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
Nazis didn't oppose Islam Are you literally stupid? Or are you just so dishonest you have to lie about everything? According to the Nazis' racist ideology, Arabs are racial Semites and thus subhumans, similar to Jews. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler described the struggle for world domination as an ongoing racial, cultural and political battle between Aryans and non-Aryans. He envisaged a "ladder" of racial hierarchy, asserting that German "Aryans" were at the top of the ladder, while Jews and Gypsies were consigned to the bottom of the order. On Hitler's racial ladder, Arabs and Muslims occupied a servile place, held in much the same contempt as the Jews Side: America is their home
2
points
1
point
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[4] I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n* with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[5] Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[6] The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.![7] https://wikiislam.net/wiki/QuotationsonIslamfromNotableNon-Muslims#AdolfHitler Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Should we ignore human rights atrocities when they are committed by Jews and Christians, yes? No, we shouldn't. That's why we have borders, so these maniacs of any faith or lack of faith can't get into our countries. That's why humans have instincts, so they don't pet people or creatures who are bat shit crazy. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Good. We agree. So there went your "those Christians are all Nazis" narrative. It'd be best that you educate yourself on religion if you want to get into debates like these. As much as I enjoy beating your brains in, I pity your ignorance, and feel bad kicking a retarded kid around. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
So a book written 2000 years before Israel even existed tells you to be pro Israel You don't think Israel existed 2000 years ago when Jesus was walking around or that it is referenced in the New Testament? Bwahhahahhahahahahhahahahahha! Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
Nazis supporting Jews? The Nazis had over 100,000 Jews fighting for them in the German army, you idiot. Furthermore, supporting the terrorist state of Israel is not "supporting Jews". It is supporting the terrorist state of Israel. Israel was founded on a terrorist atrocity, committed by the Irgun, who blew up 90 people in the King David Hotel. Unlike your stance on Muslims and blacks, I recognise that not all Jews are responsible for the acts of a few cruel madmen. Side: America is their home
1
point
The Nazis had over 100,000 Jews fighting for them in the German army, you idiot. That's kind of how it works when you use brutal force on anyone who doesn't do as you say.... I know it's hard to understand, but maybe when you turn 6 we'll talk again... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
That's kind of how it works when you use brutal force Well in that case you are only fond of the Israelis because you are using brutal force to get them to do what you want. Was that the point you were trying to make? The Jews who fought for Hitler were not forced into anything. They were volunteers, just like the rest of the German army. Open a history book, you filthy neo-Nazi scuzzbucket. Side: America is their home
1
point
Well in that case you are only fond of the Israelis because you are using brutal force to get them to do what you want. Was that the point you were trying to make? You're welcome to show the U.S. or me using brutal force to do anything in Israel. The Jews who fought for Hitler were not forced into anything. They were volunteers, just like the rest of the German army. Bwahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahaha! You're an ass clown. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You're welcome to show the U.S. or me using brutal force to do anything in Israel. As you are equally welcome to show that Hitler used "brutal force" to convince 100,000 German Jews to fight for Germany. Clearly you do not understand what parody is, do you? Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Not all Jews...... Are Israeli...... I never said they were. Christians are as pro Jew as anyone because the Bible tells them to be. Your ignorance is mind boggling. Jesus was a Jew. You yourself tried to condemn me by using the Jewish Torah because I'm a Christian... Bwahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahha! Now I'm a Jew hating Nazi. You should get your dogmas and stories straight. This is embarrassing for you. Maybe you should open a book. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
I never said they were Yes you did. You said you support Jews because you support Israel, implying these two are the same thing. You can't remain honest for a single minute can you? Christians are as pro Jew as anyone because the Bible tells them to be You are aware that Hitler was a Christian, right? "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
1
point
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[4] I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n* with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[5] Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[6] The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.![7] https://wikiislam.net/wiki/QuotationsonIslamfromNotable_Non-Muslims Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You are aware that Hitler was a Christian, right? 1)You yourself have claimed Hitler to be untrustworthy and a liar. (Concerning his claim to be a Socialist) 2)He assaulted Christianity once he was at the height of his power. 3)This has nothing to do with Christianity in general being pro Jew because the Bible says to be. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You yourself have claimed Hitler to be untrustworthy and a liar. (Concerning his claim to be a Socialist) This is a guilt by association fallacy. Just because Hitler lied about being a socialist doesn't mean he lied about being a Christian. On the contrary, he was raised as a Christian by a devoutly Christian mother. "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." (Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922) "You yourself have claimed" that Jesus openly mocked the Jewish religion and told his followers not to follow Moses' laws, have you not???? Bronto, are you actually Hitler? Be honest now. Did you escape to Cuba, like the legends say? Side: America is their home
1
point
This is a guilt by association fallacy. Just because Hitler lied about being a socialist doesn't mean he lied about being a Christian. Bwaahahhahahahhahaha! Apparently you didn't comprehend his quotes demonizing Christianity and calling it weak and pathetic. On the contrary, he was raised as a Christian by a devoutly Christian mother. So was Stalin. He openly claimed to be an Atheist. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
I have. Then you echoed the precise words of Hitler, did you not? The New Testament tells us to love and support Israel. (blank stare) Clearly no it doesn't, because Israel is a state created in 1948, and the Bible was written 1948 years earlier. I do not believe in Biblical prophecies because, unlike you, I am not completely insane. Side: America is their home
1
point
Israel was created in the Old Testament you ignorant wretch. Israel is literally the name of the man who founded the country 4,000 years ago. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Israel was created in the Old Testament No it wasn't you mentally ill window licker. Creation of Israel, 1948. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day. https://history.state.gov/milestones/ Modern Israel was part of the ancient region of Canaan. Put the Bible down and pick up a history book. Side: America is their home
1
point
I don't need a history book to know that Israel was created thousands of years ago. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
Literally stark raving, pencils-up-the-nose, underpants-on-head barking mad. Israel was not created until 1948. Anything that has happened in modern times has nothing to do with Israel in the Old Testament or in the days of Jesus. Are you dumb as a box of rocks? The topic is that the Bible, which was written thousands of years before 1948 tells us to love Israel. Israel was a nation when that was written. Israel is a nation now. What happened prior to 1948 in modern history doesn't even have anything to do with the point. Am I debating a toddler? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
I'm pretty sure ancient Israel is in the history books. There is no evidence Israel existed except in the old testament of the Christian Bible which you said Christians don't believe. The name "Israel" first appears in a text at Ugarit (on the coast just south of modern Turkey, in modern Syria) and dates around 1500 BCE. It is the name of a chariot warrior! Probably no connection with our ancient Israel! The name "Israel" next appears around 1200 BCE on an Egyptian stone monument (known as the Merneptah stele) commemorating victories of Egypt's Pharaoh Merneptah in Palestine. However it is not clear from this monument whether Israel refers to a group of people who do not live in cities or to a city-less area in Palestine. The name may also refer to a people living in a highland area of Palestine but there is no way of knowing if they are named after the name of the place they inhabit. But we cannot simply assume that this will be our starting point for an extra-biblical history of Israel. We have no way of knowing whether these people called themselves "Israel" or if they were the ancestors of those who later formed the state of Israel. The same can be said of many other peoples. Populations in the Middle East, even today as in ancient times, also change a lot. Compare the peoples of Palestine and Israel today: The modern Israel occupies mostly the area once known as the land of the Philistines, while the centre of ancient Israel (the West Bank) is currently populated mostly by Arabs. It is most doubtful that any modern Israeli - actually ethnically descended from Asian and European races -- can trace an ancestry back to the ancient land of Israel. So we need a bit more information than this ambiguous reference in an Egyptian monument before we can be confident we are looking at Israel in any sense that the Bible knows it. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
False. Where exactly is it that you think Jesus was from? Pakistan? There is no historical evidence Jesus existed either, you fatuous muffinhead. What a spectacular non-sequitur. First you claim it is false that the only evidence for an ancient Israel is the Bible, and then you support that idea by referring to someone else who similarly only existed according to the Bible. You are an idiot. Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up. Newflash. People who weren't Christians mention Jesus Christ in their writings. And... even Atheist historians believe Jesus is a historical figure, so go argue with your own clan. https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/01/08/ Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
I know common sense has long passed you by. http://www.bible-history.com/maps/maps/ http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/ http://www.biblenews1.com/maps/ http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iBrIIWFLeV0/ You'd think that after being destroyed by me repeatedly, you'd learn your lesson.. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
I know common sense has long passed you by. You have linked me to a Bible study site, you infuriating nincompoop. You intend to prove not all the evidence is Biblical by referring me to a Bible study site, you utter raging buffoon? Lol. I just linked you proof that there is no archaeological evidence for what you claim. Indeed, much of the historical evidence contradicts the Bible's claims. Side: America is their home
1
point
It doesn't matter. You still haven't addressed the topic. We are Nazis, your claim. I showed you what the Bible says. We believe in the Bible. So what we believe contradicts your claim that we are Nazis. Which part of this do you not comprehend you mindless chimpanzee? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
It doesn't matter. It does matter. It matters a lot when you have the same viewpoint as Hitler and you try to change the subject to avoid having to admit it. You still haven't addressed the topic You are insane. You have just tried to change the topic. I showed you what the Bible says. No you didn't. Not unless you went back and rewrote your posts, which we both know you do to try to convince yourself that you haven't lost a debate. We believe in the Bible You seem to be spectacularly missing the point: so did Hitler. So what we believe contradicts your claim that we are Nazis Right. So because both you and Hitler are/were Christians who believe in the Bible, that therefore contradicts my claim that you are like Hitler. Good one, bronto. Lol. Side: America is their home
1
point
It does matter. It matters a lot when you have the same viewpoint as Hitler and you try to change the subject to avoid having to admit it. How do I have the same viewpoint of Hitler when I'm anti drugs, anti Norse religions, pro Jew, anti propaganda, anti monopoly on academia, do not support busting in the doors of churches and banishing the priests, don't want to fight America or Europe, am not White, and don't use violence to impose my will.... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You are insane. You have just tried to change the topic. This is the topic. You called me a Nazi. I pointed out what the Bible says about Israel and the Jews. You jumped ship into history and archaeology, which has nothing to do with what we are commanded to do in the Bible concerning Jews, which is what would or would not make us Nazis.... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
No you didn't. Not unless you went back and rewrote your posts, which we both know you do to try to convince yourself that you haven't lost a debate. Of course I did. I provided you multiple Bible verses concerning Israel, and you went insane when I showed you maps from the Bible. Can't you at least get one mindless accusation right? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Of course I did. I provided you multiple Bible verses concerning Israel Liar. This is now the third time you have purposefully confused Israel with Jews, and the second time you have lied about showing me Bible verses. You are an utterly astonishing liar. when I showed you maps from the Bible You showed me no maps either. We were arguing about why you are like Hitler, so what relevance do Biblical maps even have to that, you bloody idiot? Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
1
point
We were arguing about why you are like Hitler, so what relevance do Biblical maps even have to that, you bloody idiot? 1)You said Israel didn't exist until 1948, which is a lie beyond the pale, thus the maps, some of which were of the Roman Empire, showing Israel on them by name, meaning you are not only wrong, but dead wrong. 2)The Bible telling us to love Jews, makes your claim of me being a Nazi mindless. Of course you're stupid, so what should I expect? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You said Israel didn't exist until 1948 No, I didn't say it. I evidenced it. which is a lie beyond the pale Then perhaps you should get in touch with the Office of the Historian and tell them. They definitely won't laugh in your face. Creation of Israel, 1948 https://history.state.gov/milestones/ The Bible telling us to love Jews, makes your claim of me being a Nazi mindless You are just throwing out words like "contradictory" and "mindless" completely absent of any argument. We have established:- A) Both you and Hitler followed the Christian Bible. B) Both you and Hitler believe Jesus was an enemy of the Jewish religion, despite being Jewish. This was your defence to the verses I quoted from the old testament last week, which commanded the slaughter of everyone from fortune tellers to homosexuals. Nothing you say can be taken seriously, because you contradict yourself constantly and simply do not care. You are a pathological liar just like Hitler and just like your hero, Donald Trump. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Get help? You still think there are things in the Bible that I have proven false and that there are things not in the Bible that I have shown you. You might want to get your head out of the BBC's propaganda machine. It's rotting what's left of your small brain. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You seem to be spectacularly missing the point: so did Hitler. Hitler used the tactics that the left is using today. Violence to shut people up. Censorship. Propaganda. Brainwash academia into a worldview. Claim to be peaceful but never be peaceful. Go to war with Christian America. Demonize Russia. Are you guys using his playbook on purpose? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
I've already provided you quotes of Hitler demonizing and mocking Christianity. He supported Norse mythology. Maybe you need to go back to those history books you keep bellowing on about. And if you look in those history books, you find that he has a strange fascination with Darwinism, which probably is your best clue as to his actual beliefs, especially considering the time period that he was touting Darwinism..... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
I've already provided you quotes of Hitler demonizing and mocking Christianity Oh shut up. Hitler was a Christian. I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2 Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5 Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7 What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8 But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10 Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1 Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1 Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created? Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2 The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10 To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk. Adolf Hitler in speech about the need for a moral regeneration of German, February 10, 1933 Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
1
point
In Mein Kampf (1924-25), Hitler expressed his views on the natural world, largely as an analogy and justification for his racialist views on human society (yes, you have to go into this). It is clear that he saw "struggle" for survival, and natural selection based on this struggle, as crucial to the lives of animals, as outlined these excerpts: “”Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.[2] “”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.[2] Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
In Mein Kampf (1924-25) This was the exact same thing you did when I posted verses from the Bible. You tried to find a reason why all the orders of murder and rape should be excused. Now it appears you are trying to find a reason why the dozens of times Hitler claimed to be a Christian should be excused. It's complete and utter sophist bullshit. Hitler was a Christian and his own quotes clearly confirm that he was a Christian. "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) Side: America is their home
1
point
This was the exact same thing you did when I posted verses from the Bible. You tried to find a reason why all the orders of murder and rape shouldn't be taken seriously. Which has nothing to do with how we are commanded to view Jews in the New Testament. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Which has nothing to do with how we are commanded to view Jews in the New Testament. It has EVERYTHING to do with it you lying neo-Nazi twerp, because the reason you said we should ignore them is because Jesus thought Judaism was stupid and held disdain for Jews and the Jewish Bible (old testament), which is EXACTLY the same thing Hitler claimed. Side: America is their home
1
point
Jesus had no disdain for Jews. He had disdain for their religious leaders, so named the Pharisees, namely the priests. He did not rebuke the concepts of the 10 Commandments. He did rebuke the Ceremonial Law of Moses, not out of hatred for Jews, but rejection of the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, and the ceremonial law being obsolete. Obsolete being the exact word, ver batum, used in the New Testament. Jesus was a Jew. His followers were Jews. His mother was a Jew. He even praised Jews. Hitler did and was none of those things. Jesus also commanded us to love God, our neighbor, and even our enemy. Obviously Hitler was none of those things either. He did have a morbid fascination with tath Darwin fish though..... and we both know which lack of belief system loves that darwin fish.... Isn't that a daisy? That makes you a Nazi. How does it feel to be Hitler's twin? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Now it appears you are trying to find a reason why the dozens of times Hitler claimed to be a Christian (just like his parents), shouldn't be taken seriously. It shouldn't be taken seriously because a Christian would be able to find no justification in the Bible to kill Jews, and yet he did, and the fact that he mocked Christianity later in his rule over Germany. That's pretty simple logic. As a matter of fact, that's about as easy of logic as there is. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
It shouldn't be taken seriously because a Christian would be able to find no justification in the Bible to kill Jews For the umpteenth time, you yourself found that reason last week, when you were attacking the old testament (Hebrew Bible) and telling me Jesus held great disdain for his own culture. You are such a self-contradictory nincompoop that it beggars belief. Side: America is their home
1
point
I've never used the words "disdain for his own culture". He rejected Jewish ceremonial law. He also praised Jews, led Jews, had a family of Jews, and was killed for being a Jew. He also taught us to love our neighbor and our enemy. That blatantly contradicts your bogus claim. Now atheists on the other hand have no commands to love anyone or do the right thing. Atheists do not believe in objective morality, thus Nazism fits your clan quite nicely. Maybe I should get you a swastika patch for Christmas. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
I've never used the words "disdain for his own culture". I don't care which exact words you used, you lying neo-Nazi scumbag. Your message was perfectly clear. You told me the Hebrew Bible was a crock of baloney and that Jews were stupid to believe it. You told me that Christians were ordered by Jesus to ignore the old testament completely and follow the new testament, which proves Jesus' disdain for Judaism. Stop contradicting yourself you idiot. It's infuriating. I've never met anybody who contradicts himself so much in all my life. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
You told me that Christians were ordered by Jesus to ignore the old testament completely and follow the new testament, which proves Jesus' disdain for Judaism. Nope. I told you that he rejected the law of Moses, AKA Jewish ceremonial law, and he did. He believed in Judaism, but because of who he was, and God's promise to abolish it with a better covenant, once its purpose was fulfilled, he, being God, was rejecting it and bringing in the New covenant, AKA the New Testament, that could only be brought in by the Christ according to the OT, and he WAS the Christ. The point? We don't follow the laws of Moses as Christians. Jews do. We aren't Jews. We are Gentiles. Do you need a lesson on the difference and why? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Nope LIAR!!!! I told you that he rejected the law of Moses, AKA Jewish ceremonial law, and he did No, you told me he rejected Judaism, and you continued to repeat the claim throughout the next three posts in which I pointed out that he was a Jew. You are a silly little liar. Side: America is their home
1
point
No, you told me he rejected Judaism He believed in Judaism, and was a practicing Jew. He rejected Judaism in terms of it being the old covenant because he was brining in the new covenant. If this is really that hard to understand, maybe you should start with trying to see if you can open a candy bar wrapper first, then try unlocking a door or tying your shoes. Once you master that, then we'll see if I can find you something like an alarm clock to set. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
He believed in Judaism Your story changes like the wind changes direction. You claimed he rejected the Hebrew Bible, and told his disciples not to follow it. If he believed in Judaism, as you now claim, then that means he believed in the Judaic scripture:- A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB) If this is really that hard to understand It isn't hard to understand. You said one thing last week during one argument, and now you are saying the precise opposite. That's very easy to understand. Why would you think my lack of understanding is to blame for you contradicting yourself? Side: America is their home
1
point
Your story changes like the wind changes direction. You claimed he rejected the Hebrew Bible Nope. The Hebrew Law and Prophets prophesied the Christ, who is him. He rejected the Old Testament Covenant because he himself was the usher of the New Covenant spoken of in the Old Testament. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Nope LIAR!!!!! That was the entire point of your argument!!! I posted two dozen fire and brimstone old testament verses and you claimed Christians reject the old testament because Jesus specifically told them to!! Bugger off, you absurdly dishonest worm. Side: America is their home
1
point
I posted two dozen fire and brimstone old testament verses and you claimed Christians reject the old testament because Jesus specifically told them to!! He didn't tell them to "reject the old testament". He told them to follow his commands in the New Testament, and told them the Ceremonial Law was obsolete because of him. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
He didn't tell them to "reject the old testament". He told them to follow his commands in the New Testament Which directly contradict the commands in the old testament!!!!!! You are so stupid and wilfully dishonest it's incredible. Last week you challenged me to find any verse at all in the new testament which agrees with the commands of the old testament. Now you are arguing the complete opposite. You are an unfunny joke. If Jesus did not reject the old testament as you claimed last week then it is therefore your duty as a Christian to murder homosexuals, is it not? Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
Excellent. It was a pleasure beating you like a one legged dog You do not "beat" people in debates by contradicting your own arguments you mentally defective cretin. Debate winners do not lie, contradict themselves, or misrepresent what the other person has said. Quite clearly, only someone who has lost a debate has cause to do any of those things. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
If he believed in Judaism, as you now claim, then that means he believed in the Judaic scripture:- Exactly. And he was the Christ predicted in the Judaic scripture. And the Christ, in the Judaic scripture comes and destroys the law and ushers in a new covenant. Do I really need to play that Jeopardy theme music again? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Exactly Exactly? EXACTLY???? You argued the complete opposite last week when I posted these verses:- All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT) If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT) A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB) You don't even agree with yourself, so how is anybody else supposed to argue with you? So, to clarify, you now agree that the Christian Bible orders the death of homosexuals, yes? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB) Of which he changed, being the Christ, because the old covenant had served its purpose of condemning sin, and he, the Christ, was ushering in the new covenant which then shows God's grace. Cue Jeopardy theme music. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
Stop contradicting yourself you idiot. It's infuriating. I've never met anybody who contradicts himself so much in all my life. 1)If you are infuriated, engaging me makes you an idiot, and you're on the wrong type of site. 2)You have met someone that contradicts himself way more than me. He's in that reflective surface above your bathroom sink staring back at you. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Sure you did. You said that he couldn't be believed when he said that he was a Socialist. That was during an entirely separate conversation in which I pointed out that the scholarly evidence does not support the idea that he was a political socialist. Clearly you are the liar here, because you are trying to change "I don't believe Hitler was telling the truth about being a socialist" to "I don't believe Hitler was telling the truth about anything." Furthermore, you tried this precise same guilt-by-association fallacy three hours ago (i.e. Hitler lied about being a socialist, so therefore Hitler must have lied about everything) and I debunked it. Clearly, you have exhausted all other lines of bullshit. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
because you are trying to change "I don't believe Hitler was telling the truth about being a socialist" to "I don't believe Hitler was telling the truth about anything." You yourself are a character witness against him. And in an American court, character assassination is permissible. Thanks for destroying your own witness there genius. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You yourself are a character witness against him No, I'm a character witness against you, who is trying to change "I don't believe Hitler was telling the truth about being a socialist" to "I don't believe Hitler was telling the truth about anything." You lack the intelligence to debate the truth, so instead you misrepresent what other people say, contradict your own arguments, and tell massive lies. Just like Hitler did. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
1
point
You are claiming Jesus simultaneously accepted and rejected Judaism. He did, because he was the arbitrator of both Testaments and both prophecies. He introduced the first. He then made it obsolete, and introduced the second, just as he said he would do, thus to say we who are of the second, are of the first, makes you an ignorant clown who needs to shut your lips and learn. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
(i.e. Hitler lied about being a socialist, so therefore Hitler must have lied about everything) Or it proves he will lie about big important things like his ideology. Proving he will lie, then being mad when I point out that YOU proved he will lie, is a horrible debate strategy, and rather childish. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Or it proves he will lie about big important things like his ideology It doesn't prove anything except that he lied about being a socialist. That's the entire point of a guilt-by-association fallacy. You claim that because he is guilty of this, he must therefore be guilty of that. Your sophistry is beyond annoying. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
Hitler's Christian belief is verifiable and consistent with the evidence. Demonizing Christianity, promoting Darwinism, having Norse God parades, taking over the churches with force and silencing the priests, and going on a cocktail of 80+ drugs isn't good evidence of him being a Christian. It's the opposite, obviously.... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
Which has nothing to do with whether the Bible tells us to love Israel or not. Do you know how to actually defend a position? The topic was that we aren't Nazis because the Bible tells us to love Israel. The history or lack of history, or Israel being on anything, has nothing to do with what we are commanded to do in the Bible. Is this sailing over your head? Probably so. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
It doesn't matter if I believe in Judaism Clearly it does matter, you sophist toolbag. The old testament is in direct contradiction to the evidence. There is no evidence for a Joshua-style Israelite invasion of Canaan. Generations of archaeologists have sought extensively, yet in vain, among ruins of Palesitinian cities to find evidence of such a conquest of the land by non-Canaanite groups. Side: America is their home
1
point
Which would have nothing to do with what we are commanded to do in reference to Israel in the Bible. You've lost the point, and look like a clown again. The point was we aren't Nazis because in our own book we are to love Israel and the Jews. Try to keep up will ya? Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Which would have nothing to do with what we are commanded to do in reference to Israel in the Bible. We are talking about Jews, not Israel. Why do you keep pretending Israel and Jews are the same thing? That's the second time this evening you've done it, and the first time you challenged me to prove it. Both you and Hitler believe Jesus had contempt for the Jewish religion. Fact. You've lost the point No, you're simply a deceitful idiot who keeps lying and misrepresenting what other people say. The point was we aren't Nazis because in our own book we are to love Israel and the Jews. This is the OPPOSITE of what you claimed not three nights ago to me personally. How can you even live with being such a Janus-faced hypocrite??? You told me that Jesus openly mocked the Jews and ordered his followers to abandon the teachings of Moses. You are an idiot who can't remain honest for longer than a single sentence. Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
No, you're simply a deceitful idiot who keeps lying and misrepresenting what other people say. No. You called me a "Neo Nazi" , and I showed you what the Bible says about Jews. And you are too stupid to understand that for us to be Nazis would mean we are ignoring Jesus and the Bible. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
You told me that Jesus openly mocked the Jews and ordered his followers to abandon the teachings of Moses. Which has nothing to do with the Bible's commands on how to be towards Jews, the race of Jesus. It has to do with Jesus, who was a Jew, standing against Jewish Ceremonial Law. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
I do not believe in Biblical prophecies because, unlike you, I am not completely insane. Or too stupid to enquire. https://www.facebook.com/ Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Bronto, are you actually Hitler? Be honest now. Did you escape to Cuba, like the legends say? Yes, when the Liberal Democrats pushed my people out of North Carolina and Georgia, they impregnated my mom, and I moved to Germany after bleaching my brown skin and growing a stache. I then lived to be 120 years old and began debating on createdebate. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Based on your dishonesty with words. So you are "evil" for using many, many puppet accounts. Excellent. I said evil doesn't exist in an objective sense. Which would mean that I can call anything evil, and in reality, it really means that evil doesn't exist. You've just made up a term to fit your bs narrative because you are a clown, and a dishonest clown. Now admit your clown-ness. Go ahead. Admit you're a clown. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Unlike your stance on Muslims and blacks, I recognise that not all Jews are responsible for the acts of a few cruel madmen. False. Blacks have nothing to do with terrorism. Skin color isn't a religion or based on a holy book. I know you can't grasp that Islam isn't a race or that there are millions of white Muslims, but... I don't think ALL of anyone are responsible for anything. I'm just smart enough to not let groups from unvettable countries, that ISIS says it will infiltrate, into the borders of the country that my children are in. You must think Darwinian survival instincts are a myth. So you are anti-science. I suspected as much. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
Shall we welcome them to flood into Alaska for citizenship? Hello bront: Your post suggest you don't know the history of the border.. I dunno why. You're from around there.. In fact, for the last 50 years or so, we welcomed the Dreamers and their parents. What??? When they reached the border, did they see a DO NOT CROSS sign??? Nooooo, they didn't.. They saw a HELP WANTED sign.. So, they went to work picking your lettuce, washing your dishes, making your beds, and taking care of your children.. Now, you wanna throw 'em out.. DUDE! excon Side: America is their home
3
points
In fact, for the last 50 years or so, we welcomed the Dreamers and their parents. 1)Back in the day, we had way less people, more room, and were building a country. Now we have an infrastructure that has been built, is crowded, and a welfare system that can't sustain itself. 2)They didn't see a sign, because there is no sign. They saw fences and border patrol. So, they went to work picking your lettuce, washing your dishes, making your beds, and taking care of your children.. Now, you wanna throw 'em out.. Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation Con? How noble of you to willingly ship minorities in to do the slave labor for you. How about the cotton Con? Is that why we need Mexicans up here? The cotton? Wanting Mexicans here as equals is one thing Con. Wanting them here as farm animals is quite another. Now, you wanna throw 'em out.. No. I'd prefer we enforce our laws, and they obey our laws. Then there is no one to "throw out". If someone enters my house, It's not my fault if the cops toss them out. And if they know it's illegal, and put their child in that position, that is their fault, not ours. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
They didn't see a sign, because there is no sign. They saw fences and border patrol. Hello again, bront: This post too suggests that you're unaware of history... Fences and border patrol didn't make their appearance on the border till round 2,000's... Before that, there was a river and open desert.. And, they were HAPPY to get work. You call it slave labor, but those Mexicans never made so much money.. Their families in Mexico could feed and clothe themselves.. It was ANYTHING but slave labor.. I dunno why Mexicans pick fruit? Why do Irish become cops? Why do Indians sell jewelry? I'm no anthropologist.. I'm just a lib who believes in freedom for EVERYBODY... excon Side: America is their home
1
point
This post too suggests that you're unaware of history... Fences and border patrol didn't make their appearance on the border till round 2,000's... Before that, there was a river and open desert.. So tell us what the policy was prior to your open borders 50 year time period? Then tell us why we can't go back to said policy after a reign of mindless liberal logic, when liberals aren't in control anymore because their ways just got repudiated by 95% of the counties in America... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
I dunno why Mexicans pick fruit? Why do Irish become cops? Why do Indians sell jewelry? I'm no anthropologist.. I'm just a lib who believes in freedom for EVERYBODY... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
3
points
When they reached the border, did they see a DO NOT CROSS sign??? Nooooo, they didn't.. Oh good. There is no DO NOT CROSS sign in Alaska. I can't wait for the Russians to flood in and have children in mass and take over our country as U.S. citizens. Talk about a Red Scare. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
In fact, for the last 50 years or so, we welcomed the Dreamers and their parents. Which would suggest... 1)Even our open enemies can become citizens here if they can have a baby here. Makes sense. 2)That before 50 years ago, that was not our policy, and we can change it back and forth as needed and when we want. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
Throwing those people OUT will NOT clean up the mess.. Really? So open borders caused the mess, but tossing out those who came in with open borders will not clean up the mess? How else do you clean up a mess, sit there with our thumb up our ass and hope God cleans it up? Oh wait... Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
So, they went to work picking your lettuce, washing your dishes, making your beds, and taking care of your children.. Now, you wanna throw 'em out. They aren't picking my lettuce, washing my dishes, making my bed, or taking care of my child. Throwing out someone that you never invited into your home is pretty normal logic. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
If we're talking about illegal immigrants of course they should be deported in accordance with the law. Immigration controls are necessary to the existence of any successful country. This is because uncontrolled population growth puts immense strain on healthcare, social programs, housing, employment etc. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
If we're talking about illegal immigrants of course they should be deported in accordance with the law. Hello W: It's true.. But you CAN'T start to enforce border law, unless you FIX the problems that were created when we DIDN'T enforce them.. That went on for years and years.. To pretend that these "illegal immigrants" just got here belies the truth.. We INVITED them into our country.. They did the work we didn't want to... It worked out fine. They are our friends and neighbors. Just throwing them out isn't going to solve anything. excon Side: America is their home
My point is this: there are laws in place regarding immigration and these laws serve a purpose. As such nations should enforce their laws regarding immigration. I'm not so sure that "invited" immigrants are illegal immigrants? If they were permitted a temporary amount of time in the country to work then they have to abide by the terms they were given and leave at the end of that time. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
Hello again, W: Well, the invite wasn't all that formal.. I'm saying that when the Mexicans got to the border, there wasn't a DO NOT CROSS sign. There was a HELP WANTED sign.. You understand, that I'm using those terms metaphorically... Openly employing illegal immigrants for years and years, which many companies did, could be construed by some (me), as an invitation.. excon Side: America is their home
1
point
1
point
1
point
Companies shouldn't employ illegal immigrants for a myriad of reasons, including the exploitation of said illegals. Further I don't think that the fact that opportunities exist in the U.S. is an invitation, though it is an incentive. There will always be opportunities in a successful nation and hence there will always be an "invitation". Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
Companies shouldn't employ illegal immigrants Hello again, W: No, they shouldn't.. But, they DID, and the government did NOTHING about it. Whatever we want to call that, it's created a HUGE problem that won't be fixed by throwing all these people out.. excon Side: America is their home
This is mythologizing. Most dirty work is carried out by illegal immigrants. Perhaps they aren't part of the official economic numbers, but they bring billions every year into a country. They're also not entitled to welfare. Without them, America would be worse off. Second, what puts strain on public services more than anything, is a lack of funding. That lack of funding is an economic decision made by the government in charge. "It costs too much to have universal healthcare. It costs too much for social housing. It costs too much for welfare cheques". What this really means is: "we, the government, aren't prepared to invest sufficient quantities of money and manpower into these services. We, the government, aren't willing to force the filthy rich to pay their fair share. We, the government, aren't willing to improve educational access to allow poorer people to get out of their current socioeconomic demographic". The single biggest cause of the immense strain on public services is the governmental decision to allow the services to be in a state of stress. This is arguably unavoidable in a country where more than fifty percent of the wealth is owned and operated by fewer than 30 individuals. Such inequality has drastic implications: it means mass exploitation through minimum wage labour; it means huge debts for anybody who seeks to get off the bottom rung of society; it means huge shortfalls in funds for public services; it means oligarchic employment standards; it means most wealth is inherited rather than "earned"; it means, to summarize, that there is an accepted culture of "not enough to go around". There is far more than enough to go around, except that people are too brainwashed to believe otherwise. And who will fight for their rights if they refuse to acknowledge those rights can even exist? Side: America is their home
1
point
This is mythologizing. Most dirty work is carried out by illegal immigrants. Perhaps they aren't part of the official economic numbers, but they bring billions every year into a country. They're also not entitled to welfare. Without them, America would be worse off. Jobs Americans used to do have been taken by illegals, causing wages to go down. Thus no Americans do these low paying jobs. If the illegals were gone, Americans would go back to doing these jobs because they pay decent. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
1
point
1
point
There is? So why are so many Americans in poverty? Are you literally stupid? You worship an economic pyramid system and you want to know why the people at the bottom are poor? Did you have some kind of brain lobotomy as a child, bronto? I'm serious. Tell us. Side: America is their home
1
point
"It costs too much to have universal healthcare. It costs too much for social housing. It costs too much for welfare cheques". Or... it's simply not the government's responsibility. It's these peoples' responsibility to go make something of their lives and quit making excuses and expecting handouts on someone else's dime. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
We, the government, aren't willing to force the filthy rich to pay their fair share. They already pay 35% tax rate, hand out all of the paychecks, and deal out all the benefits while being the only ones taking risks. If they don't make a profit, you still get paid. They don't. The only way to get rich is to start a business. You didn't. That's your fault. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
The only way to get rich is to start a business. A) No it isn't. B) About 30% (one-third) of businesses will survive their 10th year in business. (The most recent data shows that of the small businesses that opened in March of 2006, 32.8% made it to March of 2016.) https://www.fundera.com/blog/ C) Get help. You are mentally ill. Side: America is their home
1
point
I said the following: "This is because uncontrolled population growth puts immense strain on healthcare, social programs, housing, employment etc." While you point to other things which can and do place strains on these items, you don't at all address the truth of my statement. If the population of the U.S. doubled overnight would social programs continue to function? What would happen to unemployment figures and wages? What about homelessness? etc. It's very interesting that you bring up wage rates considering that a major factor in rates of pay is the availability of labor. When the labor pool is larger wages drop because there is greater competition for any given job. The opposite effect: a vast increase in wages, was seen, for example, after the black death in England (Source 1,2). This was because most laborers had died in the plague and so labor was scarce and therefore more valuable. Sources: (1) http://www.ehs.org.uk/press/ Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
Your views are predicated upon the notion that a certain paradigmatically normative mode of economy is universally normative: in otherwords, you seem to think that because the interpretation of value is a certain way in a neocapitalist society, that it must or has to be that way. This is what irks me about the armchair capitalist economist. You have a complete inability to think outside the box. Yes, wages increased after the black death, labour was scarcer. But the society in which the black death took place was a feudalist shithole not unlike the quasi-fuedalism we "normal" citizens endure today under the oligarchy we are born into. The only real difference between then and now is that where hereditary title was the currency of power, now it is hereditary wealth, which coincidentally is where the vast majority of wealth is hoarded. It takes a very dull mind and an even duller heart for a man to want to justify the deliberate starvation of the democratically driven economy -- what's meant to be for the benefit of the people and is usurped by the wealthy few -- by citing references to show that death by plague is great for increasing worker's wages. What a moron. There are a plethora of far superior circumstances that would allow for massive increase in living standards for the vast majority of people. The central hurdle to this is rather simple: we, citizens of "democratic" nations, who have been able to sieze the power of the vote, of rights, of democracy and parliament and who have bit by bit stripped the feudal lords of their superiority, have yet to extend our mass confiscation of powers as far as determining by democratic process where wealth is distributed and how economy functions. Given the vote to decide, I would wager everything I own that tomorrow, by the hands of the voters: education would be fed by taxes, not profits; healthcare would be universal; medicine would be made by public companies, not private ones; wars would necessitate a vote of every man and woman, not simply the whim of a single individual; wages would not be the pittance that wealthy companymen can get away with, they would be fair proportions of the profits each worker toils to create. And men like you would be the fringe-thinkers. Finally. Side: America is their home
"Your views are predicated upon the notion that a certain paradigmatically normative mode of economy is universally normative: in otherwords, you seem to think that because the interpretation of value is a certain way in a neocapitalist society, that it must or has to be that way." It's simple economics; supply and demand. I'm not saying anything has to be any way at all, I simply stated the consequences of uncontrolled population growth. "This is what irks me about the armchair capitalist economist. You have a complete inability to think outside the box." Come now, you know nothing of me and are making assumptions. I made a point about the need for some controls on immigration and it still stands. "Yes, wages increased after the black death, labour was scarcer. But the society in which the black death took place was a feudalist shithole not unlike the quasi-fuedalism we "normal" citizens endure today under the oligarchy we are born into. The only real difference between then and now is that where hereditary title was the currency of power, now it is hereditary wealth, which coincidentally is where the vast majority of wealth is hoarded." This doesn't serve as a rebut to my point about labor supply and demand. I think there is a problem with rising inequality, among other things. One solution I would propose to this is removing money from the political process and thereby stopping one of the ways in which the game is rigged. "It takes a very dull mind and an even duller heart for a man to want to justify the deliberate starvation of the democratically driven economy -- what's meant to be for the benefit of the people and is usurped by the wealthy few -- by citing references to show that death by plague is great for increasing worker's wages." You realize that what you're saying has nothing to do with immigration right? If anything, mass immigration helps these "wealthy few" by driving down wages and lower wages means more profit. Obviously I'm not arguing for "death by plague" I'm simply demonstrating the effect of market forces on wages. "What a moron." I've been nothing but polite with you good sir, despite the fact that you seem to be debating a completely different subject to the debate topic. "There are a plethora of far superior circumstances that would allow for massive increase in living standards for the vast majority of people. The central hurdle to this is rather simple: we, citizens of "democratic" nations, who have been able to sieze the power of the vote, of rights, of democracy and parliament and who have bit by bit stripped the feudal lords of their superiority, have yet to extend our mass confiscation of powers as far as determining by democratic process where wealth is distributed and how economy functions." I don't agree with this, communism and socialism have both been tried and they always result in millions dead (hundreds of millions with communism). I personally think the path to progress that we have staked out is one of greater individual rights and self determination. This is shown in your examples of progress, it's always about empowering the individual insofar as is possible, not imposing collectivism. The right to private property is one of the rights that we the citizenry had to fight for against our rulers. Under the centralized control of communism and socialism the people aren't even free to dissent, let alone own private property. For someone so skeptical of the powerful, I find it interesting that you would want a group to have control over the entire economy and the distribution of wealth. "Given the vote to decide, I would wager everything I own that tomorrow, by the hands of the voters: education would be fed by taxes, not profits; healthcare would be universal; medicine would be made by public companies, not private ones; wars would necessitate a vote of every man and woman, not simply the whim of a single individual; wages would not be the pittance that wealthy companymen can get away with, they would be fair proportions of the profits each worker toils to create." Education is mostly taxpayer funded and in western democracies you will always have access to free education. Healthcare is universal in most liberal democracies (and the U.S. isn't even that far behind). Some medicines are made by public companies. As for wars, I don't agree with wars of aggression. Wages could be higher, sure, and we were discussing one of the factors in rates of pay before we took this diversion. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
I don't agree with this, communism and socialism have both been tried and they always result in millions dead (hundreds of millions with communism). Neither have been tried. Stalinism was dictatorial. In Stalin's Russia, value was not redefined as Marx wrote that it would need to be. In Stalin's Russia, the commoner did not direct through democratic process the product, amenities and infrastructure of the nation. Communism has not existed on Earth. There have been only dictatorships, which have hijacked the label of communism in pursuit of feudalistic agendas. Feudalism -- if you had read any Marx, you would know -- is the very first crux of oppression that Marx and Engels tackle in their Manifesto. I personally think the path to progress that we have staked out is one of greater individual rights and self determination. Socialism and communism (as Marx writes) are about self determination. Whereas oligarchy, feudalism, presidency and monarchy offer centralized power to a select individual or several individuals, Marxism offers a society that is bottom-up, not top-down. This is shown in your examples of progress, it's always about empowering the individual insofar as is possible, not imposing collectivism. Empowering the individual. This is a soundbite for capitalism. All it really means is, empowering those with might -- monetary, familial or otherwise -- against the majority. The right to private property is one of the rights that we the citizenry had to fight for against our rulers. Marxism doesn't demand that people give up property. Only that excessive proprietary holdings that by virtue of their private ownership diminish the utility of the working class, be surrendered to the public body: this is your railways, your oil wells, your mines, your power stations, your roads: anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage. Under the centralized control of communism and socialism the people aren't even free to dissent, let alone own private property. In capitalist society, dissent is only as effective as far as it aligns with the individualist paradigm. In Marx's writings, he explicitly goes against any form of censorship of dissent, because censorship is a tool that has always been used to oppress the lowest rungs of society. A society that gives a voice to the many, benefits the many. A society in which what can be said and not said is dictated by the few, is not a free society. For someone so skeptical of the powerful, I find it interesting that you would want a group to have control over the entire economy and the distribution of wealth. When that group is the majority, then the majority are the powerful: that's what democracy was SUPPOSED to be. Side: America is their home
"Neither have been tried. Stalinism was dictatorial. In Stalin's Russia, value was not redefined as Marx wrote that it would need to be. In Stalin's Russia, the commoner did not direct through democratic process the product, amenities and infrastructure of the nation. Communism has not existed on Earth. There have been only dictatorships, which have hijacked the label of communism in pursuit of feudalistic agendas. Feudalism -- if you had read any Marx, you would know -- is the very first crux of oppression that Marx and Engels tackle in their Manifesto." So none of the communistic or socialistic societies that existed (and there have been many) were sufficiently exemplary of your ideal conception of communism or socialism? That's interesting because I'd say the same about capitalistic societies, yet they seem to have gone significantly less wrong than the attempts at communism and socialism. "Socialism and communism (as Marx writes) are about self determination. Whereas oligarchy, feudalism, presidency and monarchy offer centralized power to a select individual or several individuals, Marxism offers a society that is bottom-up, not top-down." Unless you want to own property or innovate a new industry, in which case it takes your self-determination in these regards. As for a society that is bottom-up, how, practically speaking, would this be implemented? "Empowering the individual. This is a soundbite for capitalism. All it really means is, empowering those with might -- monetary, familial or otherwise -- against the majority." You're talking exclusively about the financial aspect of empowering the individual. I can agree that there are advantages conferred by money and connections (which were worked for by the individuals' ancestors by the way). The fact of the matter is that if you study and get a good career you will earn more money than you could ever need. "Marxism doesn't demand that people give up property. Only that excessive proprietary holdings that by virtue of their private ownership diminish the utility of the working class, be surrendered to the public body: this is your railways, your oil wells, your mines, your power stations, your roads: anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage." So you're saying that in general the means of production and distribution would be privately owned and controlled? This seems to be in contrast with Marx's views. Though you also seem to be saying that everything would be publicly owned and controlled: "anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage." As for power stations and railways, these were created by private individuals and groups using their time and resources. You will need to rob these people of their possessions with the threat of force. "In capitalist society, dissent is only as effective as far as it aligns with the individualist paradigm. In Marx's writings, he explicitly goes against any form of censorship of dissent, because censorship is a tool that has always been used to oppress the lowest rungs of society. A society that gives a voice to the many, benefits the many. A society in which what can be said and not said is dictated by the few, is not a free society." Yet such centralized control always seems to lead to abuses of power, for instance in the violent suppression of dissent in communist and socialist societies. Also, there seems to be a theme of needing to violently force people to work, since there is no other incentive to do so. "When that group is the majority, then the majority are the powerful: that's what democracy was SUPPOSED to be." So you want a communism that is organized by direct democracy? That sounds grossly inefficient, imagine having to vote on every single aspect of society and industry on a regular basis. After all, that is the only manner in which "the majority are the powerful". Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
So none of the communistic or socialistic societies that existed (and there have been many) were sufficiently exemplary of your ideal conception of communism or socialism? That's interesting because I'd say the same about capitalistic societies, yet they seem to have gone significantly less wrong than the attempts at communism and socialism. This is partly what is wrong with the Western education system. Capitalist culture suffers from a dire case of confirmation bias. Firstly, socialism and communism aren't equatable. Many socialistic countries today -- if we are to take average living standards, scarcity of crime, freedom of expression and lack of poverty as our measures -- do far, far better than the American bastion of capitalism. Explain that to me. Second, while it is true that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and PolPot's Cambodia, to name a few, were brutal dictatorships, you would need to completely redefine the word communism to try to stick that label onto those dictatorships. Communism is literally the exact opposite of a despotism that witholds all wealth for the despot. As for capitalism working significantly less violently, that's only if you leave out the hundreds of millions of people who have been killed directly and indirectly through attempts to export the practice. The British Empire did it, the Americans did it, the French did it, the Portuguese did it. Capitalism is every bit as dirty and dangerous as Stalinism was. Unless you want to own property or innovate a new industry, in which case it takes your self-determination in these regards. Stalinism would. A Marxist communism would not. We would be educated to strive to the common benefit rather than the personal. It is, contrary to belief, quite natural for humans -- well educated and with nurtured morality -- to care just as much about others' wellbeing as their own. As for a society that is bottom-up, how, practically speaking, would this be implemented? With time, effort and a long and arduous struggle. You're talking exclusively about the financial aspect of empowering the individual. I can agree that there are advantages conferred by money and connections (which were worked for by the individuals' ancestors by the way). The fact of the matter is that if you study and get a good career you will earn more money than you could ever need. This is naive. Tell this to Indian slum children. So you're saying that in general the means of production and distribution would be privately owned and controlled? Not at all. The means of production would be communally owned. This seems to be in contrast with Marx's views. Though you also seem to be saying that everything would be publicly owned and controlled: "anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage." Not at all. Only things that are usurped from many for the benefit of few. As for power stations and railways, these were created by private individuals and groups using their time and resources. You will need to rob these people of their possessions with the threat of force. I don't care who built and owns the railways. Many people worked to build these infrastructure, probably for pittance. They're nationally important and I would have no issue taking them from individual privateers. Capitalism takes far more from the many and gives it to the few. We would just be balancing the books. Yet such centralized control always seems to lead to abuses of power, for instance in the violent suppression of dissent in communist and socialist societies. Also, there seems to be a theme of needing to violently force people to work, since there is no other incentive to do so. You're still struggling with definitions. Marxist communist theory isn't about despotism and centralised power. It's about evenly dispersed power. As for the "force to work" garbage, Stalinism isn't communism. China's state oligarchy isn't communism. Those people in those countries didn't get welfare cheques every month. Their incentive to work wasn't nullified by comfort lol. They had to work because their leaders were tyrannical despots that stripped them all of everything. Stalin didn't nationalize the infrastructure and give control over it to the people: he seized the infrastructure and dictated every which way it would be used, regardless of the people. There's a huge difference. So you want a communism that is organized by direct democracy? That sounds grossly inefficient, imagine having to vote on every single aspect of society and industry on a regular basis. After all, that is the only manner in which "the majority are the powerful". Right now, I'd settle for just having a vote on issues of pressing importance. Maybe like whether we ought to go into wars in countries most Westerners can't even point out on a map, or whether it's okay for education to cost our kids an arm and a leg, or maybe allow people to decide whether spending more money on bullets and bombs than on the nurturing of young minds is a wise financial decision. In all the ways that matter, we already live under a tyranny. Side: America is their home
"Many socialistic countries today -- if we are to take average living standards, scarcity of crime, freedom of expression and lack of poverty as our measures -- do far, far better than the American bastion of capitalism. Explain that to me." Which countries specifically by what metric? As far as I can see the opposite is true, take for instance Venezuela. Don't go labeling European countries with socialized healthcare as examples because they are still capitalist. "Second, while it is true that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and PolPot's Cambodia, to name a few, were brutal dictatorships, you would need to completely redefine the word communism to try to stick that label onto those dictatorships. Communism is literally the exact opposite of a despotism that witholds all wealth for the despot." I personally think that a need to reward those who work hardest or are most useful will always be necessary, thus creating a two-class system in any communist country. As for the creation of dictatorships, one should ask what it is about communist systems that result in this. "As for capitalism working significantly less violently, that's only if you leave out the hundreds of millions of people who have been killed directly and indirectly through attempts to export the practice. The British Empire did it, the Americans did it, the French did it, the Portuguese did it. " Do you think that these wars were about spreading an ideology or were they about natural resources, imperialism and domination? If you think they were about spreading capitalism rather than the obvious reasons for which war has always been fought then please provide some evidence for this. "Capitalism is every bit as dirty and dangerous as Stalinism was." For what reason is that? What about capitalism is as bad as the forced labor camps and tens of millions dead? "Stalinism would. A Marxist communism would not. We would be educated to strive to the common benefit rather than the personal. It is, contrary to belief, quite natural for humans -- well educated and with nurtured morality -- to care just as much about others' wellbeing as their own." OK so in what manner can I innovate a new industry if the means of production and distribution are owned by "the people" (in practice owned by the administrators)? "With time, effort and a long and arduous struggle." Specifics are needed. "This is naive. Tell this to Indian slum children." I was talking about western liberal democracies, research India's caste system please. "Not at all. Only things that are usurped from many for the benefit of few. I don't care who built and owns the railways. Many people worked to build these infrastructure, probably for pittance." People worked in exchange for a wage that was agreed upon. "They're nationally important and I would have no issue taking them from individual privateers. Capitalism takes far more from the many and gives it to the few. We would just be balancing the books." Exactly, so you don't agree with the right to private property. "You're still struggling with definitions. Marxist communist theory isn't about despotism and centralised power. It's about evenly dispersed power." Right, because the administration (and administration is necessary) will not take advantage of their power. Power doesn't corrupt at all. "As for the "force to work" garbage, Stalinism isn't communism. China's state oligarchy isn't communism. Those people in those countries didn't get welfare cheques every month. Their incentive to work wasn't nullified by comfort lol. They had to work because their leaders were tyrannical despots that stripped them all of everything. Stalin didn't nationalize the infrastructure and give control over it to the people: he seized the infrastructure and dictated every which way it would be used, regardless of the people. There's a huge difference." So people will work with no incentive to do so? Or are you only going to give money/resources to people who work? "Right now, I'd settle for just having a vote on issues of pressing importance. Maybe like whether we ought to go into wars in countries most Westerners can't even point out on a map, or whether it's okay for education to cost our kids an arm and a leg, or maybe allow people to decide whether spending more money on bullets and bombs than on the nurturing of young minds is a wise financial decision." I'm not pro-interventionism and it's not like warmongering is a feature specific to capitalism. It is a feature of every political system that has been tried ever as far as I can tell. As for education "cost(ing) our kids an arm and a leg" I assume you are talking about student loans. It does some sense for those gaining the benefit of higher education to pay for it rather than everyone having to. Now, I'd rather that corporations paid more taxes too, but discussion of that issue merits an entire debate of it's own. "In all the ways that matter, we already live under a tyranny." Name a singular way. We have the right to freedom of speech which is a way in which we don't live under a tyranny that is of utmost importance. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
Which countries specifically by what metric? As far as I can see the opposite is true, take for instance Venezuela. Don't go labeling European countries with socialized healthcare as examples because they are still capitalist. Iceland is the perfect example. I would suggest watching the documentary "Inside Job". I personally think that a need to reward those who work hardest or are most useful will always be necessary, thus creating a two-class system in any communist country "Work hardest". Hardest for what? .. Personal gain is the foundational precedent of this idea of "working hard" in capitalism. Common gain is more "useful" for more people. Majority rules, ergo, the de facto most beneficial society is the one that benefits the most people, the most. Capitalism doesn't achieve this. More than half of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer than a hundred individuals. Do you think that these wars were about spreading an ideology or were they about natural resources, imperialism and domination? Modern territorial expansion for control over more resources is at its heart a profit driven enterprise: money grants power. The East India Company; the fall of Saddam; the destruction of the democratically elected government of Iran; the reinstatement of the Shah; the sabotage of the Mexican economy; the coup in Libya; the sanctioning and ostracism of the Soviet Union by capitalist countries; the forced erection of fiat banking worldwide. These aren't random events. As for the rest of this, time will tell, but I'll leave you with a thought: If half the world's wealth is owned and controlled by less than one hundred individuals or entities, who collectively have more purchase power than the poorest 50% of Earth's population, and this disparity is only increasing as more countries adopt capitalism as their mode of economy, then it is safe to conlcude that the capitalist system intrinsically drives inequality. This is not evidenced by this single facet alone. The mode of currency creation itself, in capitalist societies, is engineered for this purpose. When curency is created on a loan, the value of a person's work is the obligation of the payee to the lender to be given under strict conditions and exorbitant interest (most of us use credit because mean global wages are almost always insufficient for a comfortable standard of living), yet the lender has NO responsibility for ascribing "real" value to the loan it gives out. It effectively creates currency from thin air and demands a person's time and effort in return. The issue is that when this inflationary system inevitably deflates, the creators of fiat-currency -- the most significant usurers -- demand back more than the value of what they have created, which inevitably leads to mass foreclosure and default which is legally enforced on the populace: this is a systematic redistribution of not only current, but future, wealth. It's already a rigged system; it is oppression by economic engineering. Just because the tyranny isn't written in law or engraved on the side of a chemical weapon, does not make it any less insidious nor real. My desire isn't to take from everyone, it is only to engineer a system that rather than fleece the common person, takes back control and gives it to the masses who are being exploited at present. That's what democracy is MEANT to be. The power of the common people over ALL aspects political, social and economic, for the benefit OF ALL those people. Oligarchy, it is not. Side: America is their home
"Iceland is the perfect example." Precisely what makes you say that capitalist Iceland is socialist? ""Work hardest". Hardest for what?"] The goal of their labor is insignificant to a point about how some people work harder than others, or are more useful because of qualifications and thus need to be paid more as motivation. This is aside from the fact that an hour of their labor is of greater value than the average. "Personal gain is the foundational precedent of this idea of "working hard" in capitalism. Common gain is more "useful" for more people." Personal gain is part of it, because people are motivated best in this manner. Moreover, if I am creating value then I should benefit from doing so. The creation of value serves common gain, every item and service you benefit from only exists because people created value. "Majority rules, ergo, the de facto most beneficial society is the one that benefits the most people, the most. Capitalism doesn't achieve this. More than half of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer than a hundred individuals." How do you propose to substantiate your claim that capitalism is of less benefit to people than communism or socialism? Further, inequality has gotten so bad because the rich have undue influence on the government, not because of capitalism. "Modern territorial expansion for control over more resources is at its heart a profit driven enterprise: money grants power." So communist/socialist societies have no desire or use for territory or resources? Why is that? It's strange that the U.S.S.R. invaded Poland in 1939 then, for according to you it had nothing to gain. "...the fall of Saddam..." None of these events are related to capitalism. If the U.S.S.R had won the cold war and became the world hegemon you would also see it flexing it's muscles worldwide and consolidating it's power. "...then it is safe to conlcude that the capitalist system intrinsically drives inequality." Obviously capitalism will always result in inequality, however as previously explained the magnitude of the inequality is caused by the fact that the rich can buy our politicians. "When curency is created on a loan..." I assume you are talking about quantitative easing and fractional reserve banking, neither of which are intrinsic to capitalism. In the U.S., for example, the Federal reserve act was only passed in 1913. "It's already a rigged system" Indeed the system is "rigged" in several ways, but none of these ways are inherent to capitalism itself, they are simply part of our current, deeply flawed, iteration of capitalism. "My desire isn't to take from everyone, it is only to engineer a system that rather than fleece the common person, takes back control and gives it to the masses who are being exploited at present." As aforementioned, this is completely achievable within the frame of capitalism. In addition, if you look at socialist and communist countries you will find that the masses have far less power and control than in capitalistic countries. Read "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, for example. Inequality may be inherent to capitalism but oppression appears inherent to socialism and communism. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
Precisely what makes you say that capitalist Iceland is socialist? Socialism and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. Iceland is a democratic socialism -- a country that subscribes to the profit-driven model of wealth generation, with specific rules about what can and can't be "private property". A lot of infrastructure is publicly owned in Iceland. If you know about the country's history, you'll know they instituted widespread banking reforms after the 2008 economic crash that undid a tirade of previous privatisation of the country's banking and infrastructure that left it with unsustainable debts. They jailed the bankers and politicians involved in it, too. It's as close as any country has got to genuinely Marxist socialism, and it has achieved that through the kind of direct democracy where citizens get active and straightforward weight in the direction their economy takes. Socialism, according to Marx, is a broad spectrum, all part of a progression from outright capitalism towards working communism. The goal of their labor is insignificant to a point about how some people work harder than others, or are more useful because of qualifications and thus need to be paid more as motivation I don't think it's insignificant at all. Most life motivation comes from early education. If that education's instilled goals changed from self to community; and its methodologies from didactics to cooperatives; and its goals from preparation for the capitalism model to preparation for change and adaptation, moral analysis and criticism, and interpersonal growth; then I think we would see a tremendous shift in the ideologies of the coming generations, which is necessary for humanity to face many of the challenges that we face as modern citizens. You only need look at YOLO culture, extreme individualism, the breakdown of the nuclear family, the increase in debt, the stagnation of wages for the purposes of private profiteering of a small number of individuals, the sickening rise in property prices, the disconnect of millenials with the capitalist traditions of their parents and grandparents, and the general trend towards social withdrawal in modern people, to see that this individualistic culture is really, really harmful for our social cohesion and health. I'm not your typical Libernazi. I'm independent. I think there are a plethora of global problems that inter-relate and capitalism isn't the root of all of them, but certainly this predatory capitalism of this century and the debt and decay that the 70's and 80's generations have left this generation with: they need addressed. This is aside from the fact that an hour of their labor is of greater value than the average. Labour for pyramidal purposes is about as enjoyable and meaningful to most people as coal for the fire. I don't think that with all the intelligence of our species, this is how we should strive to life. Personal gain is part of it, because people are motivated best in this manner. I disagree. Many studies show that altruism motivates infants and toddlers -- the most elementary form of the human species -- more than personal capitalisation. I think it's fair to infer that selfishness is largely learned and in its negative forms, exacerbated by capitalistic culture and education. Moreover, if I am creating value then I should benefit from doing so In our capitalist paradigm, the average worker almost always creates more value than he recognizes. Certainly he creates more than the share he receives in his wages. Again, I point to the fact that more than 50% of Earth's wealth is owned or operated by fewer than a hundred individuals or institutions worldwide. The creation of value serves common gain Only if the common man sees his share of it. He doesn't at present. Every item and service you benefit from only exists because people created value This is a very gloomy way of looking at the world: everything in terms of capitalist value. Many of the things that I enjoy the privelage of: healthcare without the need to buy expensive insurance: free education (albeit of the very dogmatic variety, at least in elementary and secondary formats); the internet: weren't results of capitalistic endeavours. Mostly they were results of people whose desire it was to benefit the common good. The inventors of the internet never wanted to profit from it. Clement Atlee, who helped found and develop the National Health Service, didn't think it was fair or right that citizens should struggle to access healthcare (he saw it as a human right). So, I think this notion that good things only come from innovators with personal wealth as their motives, is wrong. There are many great strides made in humanity that came at tremendous personal losses and lives of relative financial hardship for those people who pursued their ideas. But they did these things nonetheless: from passion, empathy, and a desire to help people, to provide something good for humanity largely for its own sake. When it gets down to it, that's what I think humans really are. How do you propose to substantiate your claim that capitalism is of less benefit to people than communism or socialism? I said that the de facto most beneficial society is the one that actually benefits everyone, to the highest possible degree, rather than benefitting only a few at the expense of many. Would you not agree with that? Is that society not an objective we share? So communist/socialist societies have no desire or use for territory or resources? Again, I didn't say that. I said that territorial expansion is at its heart a profit drive enterprise. And yes, Stalinist Russia tried to expand its territory to gain control over resources. Which is, ironically, a distinctly NOT Marxist thing to do. Why is that? It's strange that the U.S.S.R. invaded Poland in 1939 then, for according to you it had nothing to gain. Where did I say that Stalinist Russia had nothing to gain or didn't want to expand?? None of these events are related to capitalism Many historians and economists would disagree with you. If the U.S.S.R had won the cold war and became the world hegemon you would also see it flexing it's muscles worldwide and consolidating it's power I'm not denying that. I agree. I think I have sufficiently justified myself already as being NOT a Stalinist. i'm not sure why you keep referring to Russia as a juxtaposition to your own views. I don't back Stalinism. These are arguments against your perception of what I've said. But your perception is incorrect. I am not a Stalinist. Obviously capitalism will always result in inequality, however as previously explained the magnitude of the inequality is caused by the fact that the rich can buy our politicians. I agree with this to an extent. But I would analyse it further. WHY can politicians be bought by the rich? How is it that the rich have gained more prominence and influence than our politicians? How is it that the rich an influence politicians more than we can? And as much as I hate it when other people answer their own questions: it is because pure capitalism is distinctly both predatory and feudal in its nature. Predatory in that it allows those with money, power; and feudal in that such power concentrates with time until the people ruling the nations of the world are the rich, rather than the voters. Side: America is their home
"A lot of infrastructure is publicly owned in Iceland." The same applies to every single country in existence. Does this mean every country is socialist? "they instituted widespread banking reforms after the 2008 economic crash that undid a tirade of previous privatisation of the country's banking" So because the banks were nationalized Iceland is socialist? "It's as close as any country has got to genuinely Marxist socialism, and it has achieved that through the kind of direct democracy where citizens get active and straightforward weight in the direction their economy takes." Direct democracy isn't socialism and given that the means of production are still privately owned and operated I don't understand why you believe Icelanders collectively control the economy. Some natural resources were nationalized via referendum, sure, yet private enterprise still exists. "Socialism, according to Marx, is a broad spectrum, all part of a progression from outright capitalism towards working communism." Can you quote him on that? Definitions of socialism usually include control of the means of production. "Most life motivation comes from early education." How exactly are you quantifying that? Given that both biology and environment influence motivation and behavior greatly and early education is but a part of the social environment which in turn is but a part of the environment as a whole this seems unlikely and is a bald assertion. "If that education's instilled..." You seem to think that self-interest is learned rather than innate. Why is this? I personally find the idea of radical collectivism abhorrent because it always results in the abuse of the individual. This can be seen in every communist country that has ever existed. "You only need look at YOLO culture, extreme individualism, the breakdown of the nuclear family" Precisely how do you link these to capitalism? The first two are linked to excessive hedonism and the third is linked to culture. "the increase in debt" That is linked to the fact that politicians are inclined to pass off long term problems to the next government, rather than solve them at great personal cost and no personal gain. "the sickening rise in property prices" There's no way this could be linked to population growth exacerbated by immigration? "the general trend towards social withdrawal in modern people" Not at all connected to technology? "...to see that this individualistic culture is really, really harmful for our social cohesion and health." It appears to me that nothing you said is actually linked to individualism itself. Individualism protects the individual as the smallest constituent part of the group, collectivism sacrifices the individual for the benefit of the group. "I'm not your typical Libernazi. I'm independent." I'm aware that you aren't liberal because you don't hold any liberal values. There is a reason western liberal democracies contain the word "liberal"; the word has meaning beyond the "liberal democrat" party, just like the word "republic" does. I'm not left wing but I am deeply liberal. "...this predatory capitalism of this century" As I say, things are the way they are because the political system is corrupt, not because individuals are able to own factories and other means of production. "Labour for pyramidal purposes is about as enjoyable and meaningful to most people as coal for the fire." If you are intelligent and knowledgeable enough to create your own business then do it. Finance is relatively easy to come about if your idea is good and if not you can simply work a few years and save up. If all you are capable of is washing dishes, however, then perhaps you should invest some time to learn something of use. "Many studies show that altruism motivates infants and toddlers -- the most elementary form of the human species -- more than personal capitalisation." By all means cite your sources. Note also that when one helps others it serves the self by creating allies. Being socially ostracized was practically the same as death in our evolutionary environment which is why we fear it so much. "I think it's fair to infer that selfishness is largely learned and in its negative forms, exacerbated by capitalistic culture and education." That makes no sense from an evolutionary standpoint. I can agree that people are naturally cooperative because we are social animals, however our own benefit naturally comes first. "the average worker almost always creates more value than he recognizes" So why doesn't he just work alone? Clearly he requires some help, be it from other workers, salespeople, administration, the provision of resources etc. "Again, I point to the fact that more than 50% of Earth's wealth is owned or operated by fewer than a hundred individuals or institutions worldwide." Already addressed this as endemic to a system where the rich have such great influence over the political processes of western nations. You may also want to learn about the "Pareto principle" and distributions. "Only if the common man sees his share of it. He doesn't at present." So according to you the creation of goods and services doesn't serve any common gain? Or have you misinterpreted my point? "This is a very gloomy way of looking at the world: everything in terms of capitalist value." No, it's in terms of value as decided by humans. After all, if people value things more they pay more money for them. Under your ideal socialism does everyone get paid nothing and just take whatever they want/need for free? "Many of the things that I enjoy the privelage of: healthcare without the need to buy expensive insurance: free education (albeit of the very dogmatic variety, at least in elementary and secondary formats); the internet: weren't results of capitalistic endeavours. Mostly they were results of people whose desire it was to benefit the common good." So all the people providing these services worked for free? "The inventors of the internet never wanted to profit from it..." The internet was an ARPA invention... Besides, the fact that people have done things altruistically doesn't oppose the fact that most of the time people are acting in their own interest. I've never stated that altruistic acts don't happen. "So, I think this notion that good things only come from innovators with personal wealth as their motives, is wrong." I never made this point. I stated that for the most part people are acting as a result of their own self-interest and that self-interest is the most powerful motivator. Obviously some people act altruistically some of the time. "I said that the de facto most beneficial society is the one that actually benefits everyone, to the highest possible degree, rather than benefitting only a few at the expense of many. Would you not agree with that? Is that society not an objective we share?" So can you point to an existing society that benefits the people better than western liberal democracies? "Again, I didn't say that. I said that territorial expansion is at its heart a profit drive enterprise. And yes, Stalinist Russia tried to expand its territory to gain control over resources. Which is, ironically, a distinctly NOT Marxist thing to do. Where did I say that Stalinist Russia had nothing to gain or didn't want to expand??" So you accept that imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism? I'm glad, it appeared you believed imperialism was somehow related to capitalism. "Many historians and economists would disagree with you." By all means elaborate, in my estimation you already conceded this point above. "I'm not denying that. I agree. I think I have sufficiently justified myself already as being NOT a Stalinist. i'm not sure why you keep referring to Russia as a juxtaposition to your own views. I don't back Stalinism. These are arguments against your perception of what I've said. But your perception is incorrect. I am not a Stalinist." You were attempting to blame imperialistic policies on capitalism. Russia under Stalin was not capitalist and yet was imperialistic (and you agree, would still be if extant). How then, can imperialism be tied to capitalism when all states desire territory and resources? "WHY can politicians be bought by the rich? How is it that the rich have gained more prominence and influence than our politicians? How is it that the rich an influence politicians more than we can?" I already explained how they can influence elections through campaign donations, back door deals, lobbying etc. "it is because pure capitalism is distinctly both predatory and feudal in its nature." If it was illegal for the rich to buy politicians then the rich couldn't buy politicians (assuming the penalties were sufficiently harsh). I've never argued for pure capitalism, monopolies need to be prevented, for example. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
Winston, this is a long wall of complete rubbish. Nobody is going to refute it, because it would be a three hour exercise in extracting straw man arguments. I only got about three paragraphs in and found these:- The same applies to every single country in existence. Does this mean every country is socialist? So because the banks were nationalized Iceland is socialist? Direct democracy isn't socialism In each of the examples you demand your opponent either acknowledge or verify claims they have not made. What is the point of doing that? It doesn't refute them. Please, help me understand how you have written so much and yet said so little to refute your opponent's argument? Side: America is their home
The points are in reference to Sean's claim that Iceland is socialist. Apparently those three points (infrastructure, nationalized banks and direct democracy) meant that capitalist Iceland is socialist. Note also that Iceland isn't even a direct democracy, though like other countries it has occasional referendums. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
SUPER STUPID you are going to tell me that all the Illegal Wetbacks that enter the US are Dreamers ? SUPER STUPID have you any facts the Illegal Wetbacks are just Dreamer Children ? SUPER STUPID you are devoid of any facts because you can't produce them. Your Typical Leftist insanity shows you want open borders and all that cross the border are Dreamer Wetback Children !You are so STUPID in the title of your post you admit they are illegal ! Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
|
It depends on individual circumstances and should be dealt with that way. If their whole family is still together and the country they came from is not in ruin then they all should share a fate as a family. But if their nation is in anarchy and war, or they have next to no family left and are almost orphans, then give them a break. Side: America is their home
1
point
So we should bring in a mass influx of Russians into the United States because they are dreamers that want to destroy the United States. Makes sense. How about ISIS? Do their babies count? Do their dreams count? How about future gang members or future terrorists? Do their dreams count Con? With your ideology we can't carry a gun to protect ourselves, defend our borders to protect ourselves, have free speech to protect ourselves. Your clan's ideology demands we lay down arms, let in anyone, shut up, and just hope for the damn best. Screw our children. They aren't top priority on Con's list. It looks like they are dead last point of fact. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
1
point
What happens when the welfare system goes broke and social security is finally depleted Con? Then what? We'll have a nice dystopian hell hole to hand our children, and the Mexicans that wanted to come here legally, will have nowhere left to go because the Mexicans who wanted to buck the system destroyed it... and sadly... we let them. It's not these Mexicans fault. It's the Democratic Party and the mindless globalists' fault. They think laws are for... well nothing. Laws hurt peoples' feelings. Laws are racist. Laws are bad. Screw it. The debt will pay for itself. Who cares if we can't afford it. Maybe a magic unicorn will save us, feed us all, and give us all a million dollars out of the kindness of its magic heart. Side: Git 'em OUTTA here
|