Yes, that is exactly why CAPITALISM works... the more you do, the more you get... it inspires people to actually do something and the more they do the better life gets. COMMUNISM rewards effort and lack thereof equally so you really don't need to do much of anything.
Suffering motivates people to do whatever they need to not to suffer. It would be great if this motivation was unnecessary
Yes, being held accountable for your skin color is unfair which is my point. Taxes are levied regardless whether or not you support the agenda they contribute to and accidents affect you whether it was your fault or not, regardless whether or not it could have been avoided.
It really depends on what you do with your hate I suppose. Hate can consume everything you do and make you old and bitter but it can also ignite your passion to surpass your oppressors. This entire world was built on the fabric of hate and oppression, in some ways nothing would get done without hate. The fact that we must consume life in order to preserve our own promotes a sort of hatred as does the struggle to be the strongest or most popular to gain a greater share of resources. The strongest people in the world with concepts like morality pushed aside are also the most hated people in the world.
Honestly, it would be great if they taught people skills they could actually land a decent job with. I have a degree and I always thought it was a waste. I only went to college because I dropped out of high school... sadly, I graduated near the top of my class- I say sadly because I really didn't like it and couldn't believe that despite my complete apathy I easily surpassed many of my peers. I just saw it as paying a penance to my family. Having pretty solid street smarts, I always found myself wondering what the hell any of that crap being taught had to do with reality. I worked a corporate job for peanuts afterward (not even $50,000/year) under the assumption things would get better (news flash, its just a huge waste of time since corporations screw all equally and they see a college grad only as an expendable tool with massive debt to be exploited) and eventually ended up making double that as a truck driver which I could have done without college in the first place (took some time). What we need are more tradespeople who know how to get things done... sadly, I think College exists to force the unsuspecting into massive debt and make the populace more reliant on a system that doesn't care if they live or die, so long as those who run it profit from their misery. Real knowledge is power... and that knowledge is the ability to get things done- not preach theory.
I think both sides are illogical to an extent but it stands to reason that the universe didn't happen by pure chance, random explosions, and one microscopic piece of matter. There are natural laws we are all beholden to and really the very idea that logic exists has to do with intelligent thought. At a sub-atomic level people can actually define what they see through a microscope simply by altering their perception of it. There is definitely a rational driving force behind all of creation because if there wasn't all would be pure chaos. Anything science fails to explain it simply ignores or tries to discredit and really I don't see any difference between "atheistic science" and "Byzantine Catholicism" since they both ignore facts whenever convenient to push their agenda.
I was kinda wondering that myself. I can understand debating things that may or may not exist but we've really kinda failed as a society when we are debating whether or not things that DEFINITELY exist, definitely exist... just my two cents.
OK... so then this a basically just a poor attempt at making some completely irrational and uninspired anti-Semitic statement directed at Christians (who had nothing to do with the origins of Deuteronomy by the way) and you don't give a shit about any of the historical value so long as we've established that "rape is wrong" and you think you're a bad-ass... ancient Hebrew women didn't have assault rifles, genius. I don't make phone calls regarding internet retardation and I fully support the second amendment especially as it applies to rapists so if there is a guy actually willing to rape you (which I doubt) shoot him as many times as you can... he might shoot back but either way Darwin wins so go nuts (it doesn't sound like a long drive). I thought you wanted to actually discuss what your selection meant but what you really want is to bait someone into an argument so you can feel superior because your viewpoint doesn't allow you to even consider that there might be more to something than what you've hard-sold yourself on. Hmmm... how very Christian of you.
The rapist was forced to honor the woman in marriage and forced to pay her father a large sum of money or be killed for theft. He was never permitted to harm the woman, leave the woman, remarry, or have sexual relations outside the marriage as this would dishonor the marriage agreement prescribed by law between the rapist and the woman's father and the initial charge of property theft would be applied and the rapist summarily killed. Deuteronomy goes on to explain that if the girl were part of an arranged marriage contract (most were) upon reaching a certain age (usually between the ages of 6 and 12) that the thief would need to pay that contract as well. I'll agree it wasn't very fair to the woman, but it did stop people from just going around and raping whoever they wanted. There was a societal expectation of marriage so unmarried women without a father or who refused to marry were considered trash and considered whores so this didn't protect them at all- I'm not saying the Hebrews were big fans of women's rights... far from it, but this law was designed to make sure that the father was paid restitution for the theft of his property (the woman- who in actuality was a very young girl if she wasn't married).
Like I said earlier if you try to rationalize this from a modern Western viewpoint it can't be done, but if you look at it the same way they did when the law was written then you would understand that this is pretty much the maximum amount of protection a woman could get in Hebrew society. In ancient Islam the woman would have been exiled or put to death along with the rapist.
This is the problem with most people who try to debate religious texts- they always want to add their own spin based on their own perception of justice/injustice. Take how you feel about it and how much it infuriates you out of the equation because that's the part that doesn't matter and just look at it for what it is... that is the key to truly understanding anything.
You asked... "What the Bloody Hell is this?!" so I gave you the answer, whether or not you like the answer is irrelevant but you cannot equate the world of the past to the world today and measure it by the same standard. 3,000 years from now people may perceive your viewpoint as equally barbaric.
I think unless you are part of some weird racist kool-aid cult you would have to take some reservation to this comment. Jesus was portrayed as having "olive" colored skin very common to the Mediterranean region of the Middle East which was a very fair near white variation of the brownish-yellow skin found in the region. I sense some Westboro douchebaggery going on here. I kinda expected a follow up statement on how God hates soldiers and queers. Anyways, this just reinforces my decision to completely avoid sites like Twitter and Facebook.
And I clearly said women had no rights and they were considered objects, therefore women's liberation has nothing to do with the argument. Being forced to marry someone you raped was a burden of great shame for both the rapist and the woman (bear in mind no one cared about the second part). I said the law was one of few that protected women.
"The problems you present are not problems with the principle, but with your interpretation of it. During the Spanish revolution for instance, every hour of work was seen as equal in value, and netted a coupon which could be exchanged for certain goods."
The work itself was that of a soldier and as even you mentioned was fairly short lived. Rebels really need to work together to win a war and coupons were used to ration resources. Every modern military does this to an extent... pay based on rank (not occupation) is another form as are the functions of a Quartermaster- this makes sense since all jobs contribute equally to a unit's survival- without warriors you have no defense, without doctors no way to heal the injured, without spies no way to anticipate an attack so all jobs are equally important to survival.
"The needy and the unable benefit most, because society has a duty to protect them. Anyone who chooses not to live their life in a way that is constructive and moral, is going to look back and ask: why did I bother living at all?"
I believe society has a responsibility to help the needy become contributors but not help the deceitful become chronic abusers. Teaching someone a trade is much better than keeping them dependent on handouts they didn't earn. A life without honor or integrity has no purpose.
"Those who're truly "unable" haven't chosen their disabilities. Are people accountable for things they haven't chosen? This is not even a frontier of debate. What you propose has nothing to do with fairness."
Its actually a huge frontier for debate. People are held accountable for things they haven't chosen all the time like being born with a certain skin color, having to pay taxes for policies you don't agree with, or being involved in an accident... just a few examples. Society has a responsibility to correct disabilities wherever possible and to not prolong the suffering of someone who is fully unable. Most disabled persons can and do contribute to society. Providing for the elderly is providing for someone who already made their contributions to the elderly previously- we all grow old.
The anarchist societies were relatively short lived due to the resources they plundered running out. Sharing the wealth works great when its other people's wealth being shared... not so much when its your own. The anarchists never came to any legitimate power because anarchists by definition see no value in anyone telling them what to do and believe in complete individual freedom... while it is true that Communism worked for them for a short period, that was only until they ran out of money to be spread around. Then the people turned on them and they turned on each other. China and the Soviets were communist and I can tell you that was what they believed. Slandering Mao to this day remains a crime punishable by beating and imprisonment. Mao's New China was and still very much is an authoritarian police state that promotes total equality in all areas of a peasants life including the number of children they can bear. But if you accidentally get pregnant twice you can sell the unborn fetus to a local restaurant who will cook it as a delicacy for $10,000 (wish I was joking).
Socialism by its very nature creates a power vacuum because total equality is not possible without a strong government to enforce it and therefore the end result has been either adaptation away from the socialist system into one that is feasible or a totalitarian communist dictatorship where authority over equality is centralized and thus enforceable.
Can you cite even one example of circular reasoning? I didn't even attempt to use reason, I simply stated why the law existed and provided extremely sound historical background as to why the law would be considered anti-rape by today's standard.
To argue rape as relevant in a culture where women were valued as property is a logical flaw. I think you are missing the point of how little women- or their emotions, etc. actually mattered when this text was written. You are correct in your assertion that this law definitely pertained to rape in the modern sense but incorrect in your assertion that this law was pro-rape, it was one of the few anti-theft laws that actually protected women whom you will often find lumped in with oxen and land if you continue reading. An unmarried girl is the property of her father until she weds and must be purchased with a dowry (the dowry for 'rape' was intentionally set very high to force bankruptcy or death on the offender- even if the man had the money he was forced to give all that money to the girls father and then marry her for life which could still be very short depending on just how much she hated him... think how appealing that would be- losing your money, your honor, and then being forced to provide for someone who wants to see you dead... its actually a very wise and sadistic punishment). I think that culture has evolved a bit over three millennium... but to attack ancient laws from a modern viewpoint you need to first comprehend what this law actually meant and the consequences associated with violating it. I think you're actually missing the point or actively seeking anti-Semitic talking points.
I think I touched on the hunter-gatherer thing (a great example of everyone having roughly the same job) but even H/Gs weren't true communists because for the most part you were expected to contribute and those that didn't were left to starve- obviously past contributions, social status, and physical ability were taken into account. Also, in most H/G societies those who provided the most for the tribe got the largest share of the tribes resources so H/Gs were also capitalists in the same sense. When times were plentiful the wealth was spread around but during hard times (like long winters) those who were able-bodied ate first because ultimately you need able-bodied people to hunt food. The system I describe is how most nomadic tribes historically handled distribution of resources and going back to the days men lived in caves doesn't sound very "progressive" to me- it sounds like a race back to the stone age.
As for the Spanish Revolution, Castro's Cuba, Mao's New China, and Stalin's Soviet Union- sure the idea worked at first... because they simply divided up all the resources the former governments were hoarding and split them amongst the people and then once those ran out forced the people to give their own resources back to the new government so those could be distributed as well (the people didn't like that as much- stuff like the "gold melt" resulted in a tremendous loss of national wealth), then once all the resources were gone in all these instances everything reverted to forced labor which is the norm in Communist countries and really the correct word is slavery.
I will agree in all these cases things looked pretty good at first. The problem with Communism is that you eventually run out of other people's money and then you have to force people to contribute. To make matters worse there is no gain on the contribution because whatever small amount gets contributed is immediately redistributed resulting in an endless cycle of poverty. Spain is a bigger economic blight on the EU than Greece is in some respects and both countries follow similar economic practices... create state jobs that serve no purpose, unionize those jobs, focus on infrastructure (instead of trade), ask fiscally sound countries for a bailout, riot until they cave out of "border violence" and "credit downgrade" fears when that doesn't happen... rinse, repeat.
Up until about five years ago I thought of freedom, independence, prosperity, a global superpower, freedom of choice, the betterment of all persons, technological advancement, the industrial revolution, and a chance to live a better life than most places in the world. Today I think about fundamental transformation and how terrifying that really is... record unemployment, starvation, homelessness, death panels, a total surveillance police state, and a corrupt government trying to model what was the strongest and most prosperous nation in the world after a third world banana republic that would make the the days of slavery seem like a godsend if it had its way.
Go for it. I don't see any legal means of punishing a minor for violating an internet porn law since they aren't legally "competent" to enter into a contract of consent (which is why porn sites strategically use a contract of consent on their entry page- basically if you aren't over 18 and you lie about it there is nothing that can be done anyways because you are a minor), the only way you could punish it would be to charge the parents for allowing them access in the first place.
Allow me to clear this up for you... Deuteronomy is the ancient book of Hebrew Law and central to the Torah. Women were considered property but what this meant is that if a man raped a woman he had to pay her father the equivalent of about 20 pounds of silver and was forced to marry the woman or be charged with theft. If the man didn't have 20 pounds of silver lying around (which was unlikely assuming he wasn't nobility) then this was considered an act of theft from the woman's father punished by castration and usually the perpetrator was stoned to death soon after. Even if the perpetrator could pay it he was forced to remain with and provide for the woman he raped the rest of his life no matter how much she hated him and if he ever divorced her the original charge of property theft would apply (castration and death by stoning). It served as a convenient way to punish rape without acknowledging women as anything other than property... this was actually probably a big win for women's rights back in the day when they actually had no rights.
Yes. It is wrong to non-consensually take away a human's ability to reproduce.
As for the animal argument, well... it could be argued that by even owning a pet you are detaining an animal against its will though it has perpetrated no crime so taking away its reproductive ability is just an extension of that. Domesticating animals takes them out of their natural state and places them in a state of dependency on human beings for their survival. Is that not also wrong by that same logic?
In ancient times, Kings would order members of their court to be castrated so they wouldn't impregnate concubines which could potentially taint bloodlines resulting in an illegitimate heir to the throne. These people were considered pets in a strange regard- the palace fed them and provided them with shelter. Just taking the argument a bit deeper...
