GREAT piece on God...Goodness...Evil...Love...and 'why?'

[shadrack]

What is the fallacy? I'm saying moral systems which embrace reality, what is, are more practical and possible.

Neocon philosophy is using law and order to temper and transmute the selfish urge.

"Greed is wanting more when you have enough" Enough for how long, an hour? It's pretty expensive to send kids to college and buy a home, is wanting these things greed. Is it greedy to want to be able to retire.

I've obviously devastated your worldview to the point where you're running on fumes, saying outrageous things, spitting our bizarre combiations of words. I think you need a nap.

An overpowerful government scares me more than overpowerful corporations. Governments use guns to accomplish their goals, businesses must appeal to a consumer's wants and needs, and competition between like corporations makes them both better and more responsive to people; plus corruption is limited at least to the extent that it will damage the corporation in the marketplace. Monopolistic governments do whatever they want and lie about the results through their state run media.

No one can disagree that moral systems that embrace reality are practical. My view is that your system isn't practical, but.....that's not the fallacy.

This is the fallacy = You said "greed is good". You can't offer a reality of human nature as sufficient grounds to justify your views on greed. Other groups (that you may or may not disagree with) could offer the exact same "reality of human nature" as sufficient grounds to justify their position(homosexuality, abortion, environmentalism, etc). This is a fallacy of moral reasoning called "naturalistic fallacy". ie, Just because a part of human nature includes self-preservation doesn't mean that a person can conclude that acting on that nature is good. You may believe, but can't be reasonable. Then you flip-floped and decided very simply that "greed is". If you say "greed is" and so assume it ought to be, you run into the is/ought problem of justifying your beliefs because you may feel like there is nothing you can or should do about it. This too is not reasonable. You may believe, but can't be reasonable. If you've decide that "greed is" without assigning moral value to it, you're a confused libertarian misrepresenting Jeffersonian democracy.
What I don't get is that if cooperation is "the result" of greed, why not skip all the greed talk and start talking about cooperation?

Can you point out bizarre word combinations. I might be able to make myself more clear.

You got it wrong about neocon philosophy.......you either believe your own hype or are duped into believing the hype........if only Strauss were alive to see the fruits of his labor.....his views have nourished religious crony capitalism crusading for global dominance......ya understand that?

....you said it....Neocon governments use guns to initiate their goals in Iraq. Then want to use their other tool, crony capitalism, to try and finish the job. That's the facts. Haven't you been listening to the neocon think-tanks? The rest of the world has.

Democratic governments are always under threat of dismissal.....robber barons are not.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No one can disagree that moral systems that embrace reality are practical. My view is that your system isn't practical, but.....that's not the fallacy.

This is the fallacy = You said "greed is good". You can't offer a reality of human nature as sufficient grounds to justify your views on greed. Other groups (that you may or may not disagree with) could offer the exact same "reality of human nature" as sufficient grounds to justify their position(homosexuality, abortion, environmentalism, etc). This is a fallacy of moral reasoning called "naturalistic fallacy". ie, Just because a part of human nature includes self-preservation doesn't mean that a person can conclude that acting on that nature is good. You may believe, but can't be reasonable. Then you flip-floped and decided very simply that "greed is". If you say "greed is" and so assume it ought to be, you run into the is/ought problem of justifying your beliefs because you may feel like there is nothing you can or should do about it. This too is not reasonable. You may believe, but can't be reasonable. If you've decide that "greed is" without assigning moral value to it, you're a confused libertarian misrepresenting Jeffersonian democracy.
What I don't get is that if cooperation is "the result" of greed, why not skip all the greed talk and start talking about cooperation?

Can you point out bizarre word combinations. I might be able to make myself more clear.

You got it wrong about neocon philosophy.......you either believe your own hype or are duped into believing the hype........if only Strauss were alive to see the fruits of his labor.....his views have nourished religious crony capitalism crusading for global dominance......ya understand that?

....you said it....Neocon governments use guns to initiate their goals in Iraq. Then want to use their other tool, crony capitalism, to try and finish the job. That's the facts. Haven't you been listening to the neocon think-tanks? The rest of the world has.

Democratic governments are always under threat of dismissal.....robber barons are not.

Nope. From the very beginning I meant simply "greed is". Self preservation is. Even to sell your socialistic utopia schemes, you must appeal to the greed of the individual: "Under our 7 year reform, your every need will be taken care of by fixing market prices... blah blah blah".

There's no flip flopping here.

Have you been listening to the jihadists armies swearing "death to america", and pledging their allegiance to Osama bin laden? President Bush has. Kerry swears allegiance to Bin Laden as well, in his heart of antiamerican hearts.

 

[shadrack]

Nope. From the very beginning I meant simply "greed is". Self preservation is. Even to sell your socialistic utopia schemes, you must appeal to the greed of the individual: "Under our 7 year reform, your every need will be taken care of by fixing market prices... blah blah blah".

There's no flip flopping here.

Have you been listening to the jihadists armies swearing "death to america", and pledging their allegiance to Osama bin laden? President Bush has. Kerry swears allegiance to Bin Laden as well, in his heart of antiamerican hearts.

Okay, assuming no flip-flopping......do you not think your view goes against Jeffersonian democracy, the economic thought of Adam Smith, and the social contract theories described by Locke and Rousseau? There is a difference between nature's liberty and civil liberty. There is a need for sympathy. Civil society institutes government for common benefit and security. If you want to claim a right to natural self-preservation within civil society, you are wrong. "Self-preservation is" can not be used as justification for anything. It is a distortion of Smith's morality and economics and goes against American ideals.

Straussian views have been in place for a quite a long time. So maybe you should reconsider your view that the U.S. is in no way part of the overall cause of anti-American sentiment across the globe. Specific causes of this sentiment - I might agree with you on many......overall cause - the U.S., in adopting an amoral real-politik viewpoint, is not entirely innocent. Maybe we should again become the morally sensible civil society that the whole world loves and idolizes.

Kerry swears allegiance to Bin Laden? Is there evidence to this or just your gut speaking?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Okay, assuming no flip-flopping......do you not think your view goes against Jeffersonian democracy, the economic thought of Adam Smith, and the social contract theories described by Locke and Rousseau? There is a difference between nature's liberty and civil liberty. There is a need for sympathy. Civil society institutes government for common benefit and security. If you want to claim a right to natural self-preservation within civil society, you are wrong. "Self-preservation is" can not be used as justification for anything. It is a distortion of Smith's morality and economics and goes against American ideals.

your pointy headed categorizations are of no interest to me.
Of course there is a need for sympathy, but modern libs employ envy, cultivation of an entitlement attitude, and personal irresponsibility to strengthen government dependancy. That's sick.

Straussian views have been in place for a quite a long time. So maybe you should reconsider your view that the U.S. is in no way part of the overall cause of anti-American sentiment across the globe. Specific causes of this sentiment - I might agree with you on many......overall cause - the U.S., in adopting an amoral real-politik viewpoint, is not entirely innocent. Maybe we should again become the morally sensible civil society that the whole world loves and idolizes.

Kerry swears allegiance to Bin Laden? Is there evidence to this or just your gut speaking?

We are nearly the lone sensibly moral nation. And as far as Kerry swearing allegiance to bin laden, all I know is that the jihad movement has a better chance of toppling infidel regimes with kerry as president of the u.s. That's a form of allegiance.

 

[shadrack]

your pointy headed categorizations are of no interest to me.
Of course there is a need for sympathy, but modern libs employ envy, cultivation of an entitlement attitude, and personal irresponsibility to strengthen government dependancy. That's sick.


We are nearly the lone sensibly moral nation. And as as far as Kerry swearing alleginace to bin laden, all I know that the jihad movement has a better chance of toppling infidel regimes with kerry as president of the u.s. That's a form of allegiance.

Perhaps the attitude the poor may have of being entitled to more than what they currently are able to receive through honest work is justified. Do you know anyone who is poor or do you work to help relieve the hardships the poor face? You claim allegiance to this neocon government. Who do you think the neocons believe are "the entitled"? Have you not read anything about neocon political philosophy? It is VERY pro-elitist. Talk about cultivating an attitude of entitlement. Like I said before, you are a confused libertarian.

Should the U.S. be the only ones in battle against the jihad movement? No! Everyone in the world was with us in recognizing the jihad movement as the biggest threat that we all faced.....countries, politicians, political writers, journalists, everyone! So the first comment out of Bush's mouth was confrontational to everyone - "you're with us or against us". Was that just an oh so extremely clever observation of reality or self-righteous elitist rhetoric spoken in an effort to squelch dissent on the practical matter of executing a foreign policy that achieves the goal of ridding the world of the jihad movement? The answer is squelch dissent. Because the Bush administration wanted more than to just rid the world of this terrible movement. They also wanted to include in their foreign policy an element of American elitist global domination. And because they set it up this way, they can control all dissent within American politics by accusing dissenters as being anti-American. That's sick, but brilliant politics. Americans may be suckers, but global domination doesn't go over too well in Europe and elsewhere.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

you're confused.


I believe the entitled are the people who earn it. Not lib whiners.

Bush's comments were not to "squelch dissent". That's more paranoid whining.

europeans seems to have no problems with islamicists who preach word domination. So I must disagree with your last point as well.

 

[shadrack]

you're confused.

Yes, you confuse me. Though, through out this discussion I've asked many questions trying to understand your views.

I believe the entitled are the people who earn it. Not lib whiners.

lib whiners?? You seem to like hate filled stereotyping of poor people. Earn it?? Who sets wages for the lowest earners? No one would be able to complain about six or seven bucks an hour if the top didn't make a hundred or more times that. Who sets wages for highest earners?

Bush's comments were not to "squelch dissent". That's more paranoid whining.

I'm not whining. I'm dissenting. If I'm not with you I'm whining against you??

europeans seems to have no problems with islamicists who preach word domination. So I must disagree with your last point as well.

europeans seems to have no problems............more of your gut talking??

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes, you confuse me. Though, through out this discussion I've asked many questions trying to understand your views.

Let me set you straight. I don't think the role of the individual in satisfying his own needs should be downplayed and villified as libs do, so the state is more central in people's lives. People striving for individual achievement, within a moral framework of course, is the very engine of society. When an individual's reward is decoupled from his efforts, the behavior/consequence loop is broken and people become animals with meaningless lives. chickens in a coop, tended by libs. No thanks.

lib whiners?? You seem to like hate filled stereotyping of poor people.

Hate filled? Oh puh- leeze!

Earn it?? Who sets wages for the lowest earners? No one would be able to complain about six or seven bucks an hour if the top didn't make a hundred or more times that. Who sets wages for highest earners?

Well. Currently we have a minimum wage, that's fine with me, though a little communistic. There should be no cap on wages whatsoever. The market should dictate it.

I'm not whining. I'm dissenting. If I'm not with you I'm whining against you??

You're whiny.

europeans seems to have no problems............more of your gut talking??

I'm talking about how libs in the U.N. love islamic dictators, and basically from all appearances, take their side, and lie to our face.

 

[shadrack]

Let me set you straight. I don't think the role of the individual in satisfying his own needs should be downplayed and villified as libs do, so the state is more central in people's lives. People striving for individual achievement, within a moral framework of course, is the very engine of society. When an individual's reward is decoupled from his efforts, the behavior/consequence loop is broken and people become animals with meaningless lives. chickens in a coop, tended by libs. No thanks.

Who can disagree with you on this? While perfectly logical, it only works in a "sterile" theoretical setting. Not too practical.
I live in one of my state's poorest counties. I know lots of very hard working poor people. They all just do the best they can with what they've got. Any company that comes in and exploits their labor at the very least wage offerable is fine by them. A little is better than none, a person might say. I know people who work, don't commit crimes, go to church every sunday, and can only afford to give their children oranges for Christmas. I'm not talking oranges instead of a $100 Nintengo. I'm talking oranges instead of shoes and clothes. The farms that come up for sale, at a low enough price that a person might be able to get started in the farm business, are all being bought up by the well-to-do who need to do something with their overflowing 401k. These farms sit and become overgrown with brush and weeds while being bragged on by some overpaid prick who is proud to have a "hobby farm" out in the country. Plus, these farms are also part of the greater hunting range of many of the poor who had been relying on them for the harvesting of game to help provide the food they need. But, of course, the new land owners don't want anyone "trespassing" and usually call the sheriff and game wardens at the first sign that some "illegal" activity has taken place.
The county also has a problem with methamphetamine trafficing and production. Those who produce and traffic are mostly "employed" by the larger distributers who are "employed" by even larger distributers and on and on. How does your "moral framework" address the hard reality of no money and high prices at the lowest employment level? Have you heard the saying "first food then morality"?
......animals with meaningless lives.......you mean men in grey flannel suits

Hate filled? Oh puh- leeze!

okay......tough love??

Well. Currently we have a minimum wage, that's fine with me, though a little communistic. There should be no cap on wages whatsoever. The market should dictate it.

Who sets the wages????? The market??? What a joke! You have got to be kidding. I thought according to your theory that there are these so called "real planners of society"? I suppose they don't have a biased influence on the "free" market?
So, what would be the goin' wage for a garbage man if all other garbage men suddenly found new jobs? My point is sometimes work that doesn't seem significant is actually quite significant. So, what makes others' work so much more significant? 100 or more times more significant, I might add

You're whiny.

Is "curious" the word you're looking for?

I'm talking about how libs in the U.N. love islamic dictators, and basically from all appearances, take their side, and lie to our face.

Is there a specific example?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who can disagree with you on this? While perfectly logical, it only works in a "sterile" theoretical setting. Not too practical.

Theocratical nothing. Society needs rules, even if noone believes in god.

I live in one of my state's poorest counties. I know lots of very hard working poor people. They all just do the best they can with what they've got. Any company that comes in and exploits their labor at the very least wage offerable is fine by them. A little is better than none, a person might say. I know people who work, don't commit crimes, go to church every sunday, and can only afford to give their children oranges for Christmas. I'm not talking oranges instead of a $100 Nintengo. I'm talking oranges instead of shoes and clothes. The farms that come up for sale, at a low enough price that a person might be able to get started in the farm business, are all being bought up by the well-to-do who need to do something with their overflowing 401k. These farms sit and become overgrown with brush and weeds while being bragged on by some overpaid prick who is proud to have a "hobby farm" out in the country. Plus, these farms are also part of the greater hunting range of many of the poor who had been relying on them for the harvesting of game to help provide the food they need. But, of course, the new land owners don't want anyone "trespassing" and usually call the sheriff and game wardens at the first sign that some "illegal" activity has taken place.
The county also has a problem with methamphetamine trafficing and production. Those who produce and traffic are mostly "employed" by the larger distributers who are "employed" by even larger distributers and on and on. How does your "moral framework" address the hard reality of no money and high prices at the lowest employment level? Have you heard the saying "first food then morality"?
......animals with meaningless lives.......you mean men in grey flannel suits

okay......tough love??

Life is tough. No one has all the answers for the future. Just because libs portray that government programs will fix everything doesn't make it true. Anyone giving you a guarantee in life, is lying to you. Utopia is not an option.

Who sets the wages????? The market??? What a joke! You have got to be kidding.

No. I'm quite serious. Lots question marks is not an effective rebuttal, by the way,

I thought according to your theory that there are these so called "real planners of society"? I suppose they don't have a biased influence on the "free" market?
So, what would be the goin' wage for a garbage man if all other garbage men suddenly found new jobs?

Obviously garbage man salaries would rise. Or they'll just get mexicans to do it.

My point is sometimes work that doesn't seem significant is actually quite significant. So, what makes others' work so much more significant? 100 or more times more significant, I might add

Since "significance" is a bit subjective we rely on the market to fix wages. It's the best way.

Is "curious" the word you're looking for?

No.

Is there a specific example?

Yes, there is.

 

[shadrack]

Theocratical nothing. Society needs rules, even if noone believes in god.

I said theoretical, not theocratic. Theocracy is faaaaaaaaar from what I'm talkin' 'bout. I'm not a big fan of religion as a tool of the government to mystify the masses.

Life is tough. No one has all the answers for the future. Just because libs portray that government programs will fix everything doesn't make it true. Anyone giving you a guarantee in life, is lying to you. Utopia is not an option.

What about guaranteeing a life of wealth just for being born? Is that not what occurs with the children of the wealthy? I'm not a "lib" as you are refering to that definition, so I don't know exactly why you are always refer to that here. I usually don't vote democrat, but I think I will this time because they are actually taking a more conservative line on many of the issues.

No. I'm quite serious. Lots question marks is not an effective rebuttal, by the way,

If the government "price fixes", it's bad but when the corporation "price fixes", it's good?
I know for a fact that prices are not determined by expenses incurred between the point of design room conception of a product and the point of sale. The price is determined by the maximum dollar they think they can get away with selling their product for. The first thing they do when researching about what the price should be is gather a group of people and ask the question "what would you give for something like this?" Market research is what they call it. So prices get inflated to a level that actually don't honestly represent the product's true value. I wouldn't consider that a free market economy. I would say it is more of a false market economy.

Obviously garbage man salaries would rise. Or they'll just get mexicans to do it.

And the rich get richer and the poor become mexican. That's nice. Mexicans don't deserve a decent wage?

Since "significance" is a bit subjective we rely on the market to fix wages. It's the best way.

What? You can't come to the obvious conclusion that waste collection is a significant contribution to the overall good of society until your trash doesn't get collected? Or is your trash not being picked up not too significant? Trash collection is extremely important, especially with these carpetbagger corporations selling tons of plastic junk then moving on to the next trend and selling even more tons of plastic junk.

I don't understand this belief that a person can not or should not place a value on the actions of individuals or groups of individuals. Outside of the "market", there is no value?

Yes, there is.

Is Yasser Arafat an example?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I said theoretical, not theocratic. Theocracy is faaaaaaaaar from what I'm talkin' 'bout. I'm not a big fan of religion as a tool of the government to mystify the masses.

You seemed to imply that rules for behavior would only work in a theocracy. OR some such nonsense.

What about guaranteeing a life of wealth just for being born? Is that not what occurs with the children of the wealthy?

Guess what. Life isn't fair. Would like to be unable to leave your children the fruits of your success? Answer honestly.

I'm not a "lib" as you are refering to that definition, so I don't know exactly why you are always refer to that here.

Allow me to classify you, since you evidently don't know the criteria: You're a lib.

I usually don't vote democrat, but I think I will this time because they are actually taking a more conservative line on many of the issues.

I'm certain you do usually vote democratic and that you're lying right now. What are the dems conservative on, i'm interested to hear it?

If the government "price fixes", it's bad but when the corporation "price fixes", it's good?

What corporate price fixing are you referring to? Using market research to help determine price is not the same thing. I guess technically yes they "set" a price. A fixed price refers to government set compulsory prices.

I know for a fact that prices are not determined by expenses incurred between the point of design room conception of a product and the point of sale. The price is determined by the maximum dollar they think they can get away with selling their product for. The first thing they do when researching about what the price should be is gather a group of people and ask the question "what would you give for something like this?" Market research is what they call it. So prices get inflated to a level that actually don't honestly represent the product's true value.

Right. Market research, where they determine what people would be willing to pay for an item, if at all. I wish the government were so thoughtful.

I wouldn't consider that a free market economy. I would say it is more of a false market economy.

How is it false?

And the rich get richer and the poor become mexican. That's nice. Mexicans don't deserve a decent wage?

Everyone deserves a market set wage.

What? You can't come to the obvious conclusion that waste collection is a significant contribution to the overall good of society until your trash doesn't get collected? Or is your trash not being picked up not too significant? Trash collection is extremely important, especially with these carpetbagger corporations selling tons of plastic junk then moving on to the next trend and selling even more tons of plastic junk.

Again significance is subjective. Hence why wages are set by the market. people with the skillset to take the trash are quite plentiful, driving the wage down. It's life, get used to it.

I don't understand this belief that a person can not or should not place a value on the actions of individuals or groups of individuals. Outside of the "market", there is no value?

Is Yasser Arafat an example?

Outside of the market there is no MONETARY value. We all feel valuable and special, let's all just pay everyone a million dollars. I have a printing press.

 

[wade]

I'm not a "lib" as you are refering to that definition, so I don't know exactly why you are always refer to that here.

Allow me to classify you, since you evidently don't know the criteria: You're a lib.

RWA's "criteria" is very simple. If you are to the left of him, your a lib. Therefore, 99% of the population are "libs".

And his lack of understanding of capitalism is quite stunning isn't it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA's "criteria" is very simple. If you are to the left of him, your a lib. Therefore, 99% of the population are "libs".

And his lack of understanding of capitalism is quite stunning isn't it?

Explain to me my misunderstandings about capitalism, if you have the nerve.

 

[wade]

Explain to me my misunderstandings about capitalism, if you have the nerve.

Your misunderstandings about capitalism are so profound it'd take a book to explain them to you. But your contention that consumers are responsible for enviromental costs of production is a solid example you don't really understand the basic concepts of capitalism, which clearly states that producers are supposed to be responsible for ALL costs of production.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your misunderstandings about capitalism are so profound it'd take a book to explain them to you.

Just give me the bullet points.

But your contention that consumers are responsible for enviromental costs of production is a solid example you don't really understand the basic concepts of capitalism, which clearly states that producers are supposed to be responsible for ALL costs of production.

I never said consumers are responsible for production costs. I merely am pointing out that there are things known as CONSUMPTION costs, and libs in their zeal to punish corporations, want to lay everything at the corporations feet. That is my point. Quit spinning.

 

[Thornton]

Here's the thing that made me leave organized religion. Logic.

Logic and the idea that although I was supposed to be made in the image of God and given freedom of choice, when i thought about anything that didn't make sense about the whole idea i was quoted *don't be given to your own understanding*. Fine. Don't be given to my own understanding while I'm told from quote *what a man believes in his heart, that is appointed unto him.*
So fine I'm not supposed to think anything out on my own but whatever i think is layed to my account. What about Paul saying *study to show thyself approved?* I get it, I'm supposed to study, learn and not think so I can be accounted? lol That was my first time of questioning the real author of the Bible. Then i decided God probably only said ten things and the rest is man adding stuff to force us to think like they do.

Here's my next big one. Jesus. So God creates the universe and all the things in it and man. He has this whole thing planned out and a plan B in case Adam and Eve screw it up. The plan B is what gives me the pain in my heart. Since God is all powerful and had the whole thing planned, what sense does it make that his plan B is to have his son brutalized and crucified? Oh yeah because sheep were the sacrafice, he'd just turn his son into the final sheep and have him slaughtered. I know the story and it makes no sense. The last thing any parent would do is is make that choice and you can't go and say it was the only one that would work cause we're talking God here and if we're to believe he made a whole universe and world how can we believe that plan B was the best he could come up with?

The last one? Hell. No. I do not believe that a loving God that supposedly gave us freedom of choice would make that choice be to do what the bible says or burn forever in hell in eternal torment. WTF kind of freedom of choice is that? What kind of loving God would even make a place of eternal torment for people he made and is supposed to love? It makes no sense.

*Children are a gift from God* yeah, i had another one. So if he gives these babies out, and he can see the future, you know, I just have a real issue with giving babies to woman who have them killed by abortion, starve them to death, beat them, you know the whole thing. What kind of a God gives a baby to a lady in Ethiopia as a gift so she can watch it starve to death in her arms? Nope it makes no sense but then, I know, I'm not supposed to be given to my own understanding. GMAFB!

 

[shadrack]

RWA's "criteria" is very simple. If you are to the left of him, your a lib. Therefore, 99% of the population are "libs".

And his lack of understanding of capitalism is quite stunning isn't it?

I can't quite figure him out. But neocons are difficult to understand. They are liberal and conservative. Kind of oxymoronic.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I can't quite figure him out. But neocons are difficult to understand. They are liberal and conservative. Kind of oxymoronic.

You came here expecting the mainstream media caricatures of what conservatives are. You never realized that we are actually more kind, intelligent, and thoughtful than you cynical, power-hungry, lying, "ends justify the means", "there is no objective reality", libs could ever comprehend.

 

[manu1959]

when you read and evalutate the bible, its stories and teachings remember.....none of it was authored by god or jesus (or jesus' wife for that matter)