Comments

  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Effective with regard to what? What has he done so far? — Terrapin Station
    Watch the video I linked. I haven't linked that video for no reason.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    You're writing this in a world where Donald Trump is president. — Terrapin Station
    Donald Trump has been quite effective, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

    I doubt many people believe that holding a leadership position denotes effectiveness, competence, etc. — Terrapin Station
    Whether they believe it or not, that's their problem. Many people are, quite frankly, very stupid.
  • Enlightened self interest versus simple altruism.
    because you are changing what you have said, as you say more — Metaphysician Undercover
    That's not true, I am completing what I have said as I say more. I hope you're not naive enough to think I can express all my views regarding power, the law, how society functions, etc. in just 1 or 2 posts right? You should stop drawing conclusions so fast and start listening more carefully - especially you should stop drawing conclusions that I've never made myself.

    What could "making people do something", which is not "making people do what you want", possibly mean? — Metaphysician Undercover
    For example, I make them do what my boss wants them to do. You have to understand that getting people to do something doesn't necessarily have to align with my will.

    You think that authority, laws, etc., to be effective, must be enforced. — Metaphysician Undercover
    I haven't said this. This is exactly the bullshit that you do. I said that authority, laws, etc. don't exist unless they are enforced.

    So if you accept, and respect the fact that you cannot force others to do what you want them to do, how does your system of laws and authority possibly work, when it is based in the principle of enforcement? — Metaphysician Undercover
    I said there are circumstances when you cannot force others to do as you want them to. There's also circumstances when you can force others to do as you want them to. I have even given you examples. I cannot force my wife to do as I want to, because that's not how power works in that relationship. I can, however, force my client to do as I want him, because power can work that way in that relationship.

    I've told you that you think very naively, precisely because you think power functions univocally, and the same means will be used regardless of circumstance. But that's not true. If I'm a politician, I can force someone to drop out of the race, and let me run in their place, if for example I have access to sensitive information on them. I won't be able to do the same in a personal relationship. Obviously. Power doesn't function the same way across the border.
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    Anybody have opinions on why Buddhism is declining (if it is)? Is it theistic competition? Is it ethnicity factors? what? — Bitter Crank
    I think it's birth-rate mainly. Birth rate seems to be the driving factor for religious growth. And apparently Buddhism isn't very successful in Communist China. I mean if most of China was Buddhist, then Buddhism would be quite possibly the world's second largest religion.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    You seem to go from "most of history's leaders were men" to "men are more effective leaders". That doesn't follow. Unless there's an implicit premise that most of history's leaders were men because men are more effective leaders – but then that is highly contestable, given that for much of history women were denied the same education and opportunity as men. — Michael
    Now they have the education and opportunity. Are they as successful as men in terms of leadership capability? No. On average they'll probably never be as successful as men in terms of leadership, because again, they are just programmed differently biologically. Women don't want to dominate, to engage in conflict, etc. Why not? Because they have lower testosterone levels. Such desires are necessary for effective leadership, maybe less so in some areas of the world today, but fundamentally they are. Only 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies have a woman CEO. Really there's no competition, here, most women simply do not have the biological drive to compete with men in terms of leadership. They excel in other attributes - peace, compassion, emotional resilience etc. being some of them.

    You seem to go from "most of history's leaders were men" to "men are more effective leaders" — Michael
    I said on average. There can be exceptions. So yes, if I see that historically men are more effective leaders than women, generally speaking, I will conclude that they are better suited to be leaders, in the absence of any other evidence.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    That noise is what came to mind when I read your quoted text. On the other hand, given what I've read from you before, it is no surprise. — T Clark


    Political correctness is a real disease isn't it? What I said is true, it's backed up by scientific evidence with regards to the biology behind it. In addition, if you look historically, you'll see that most important decision makers (leaders, whether in the military, in politics, or even in religion) - have been men. That is across different societies, different ages, different cultures and different geographical locations.

    So why does that upset you? Women aren't as effective leaders (on average, because again there can be exceptions). So what? Who says they should be to begin with? It's like asking the kidney to do the job of the heart, it's stupid. Maybe there are rare cases when the kidney does the job of the heart (for example Joan D'Arc, or Cleopatra) but those are just exceptions, not the general tendency.

    Really people have grown so stupid. What's up with this political correctness? :s Why is it considered an insult that women are on the whole less capable leaders than men? That's like considering it an insult that men aren't capable of giving birth. It's absolutely ridiculous. Each and everyone has their own role and purpose in society.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    Sometimes the questions one asks are more revealing than the answers one gets, and in this case, what is revealed is a man that is worried he might be a bit of a fish.. — unenlightened
    I think you're wrong:

    So, you bemoan the decay of the west. Ok – I bemoan the decay of the world, because we do not understand how civilization got here. Where do you think civilization comes from? How did it get its start? Think back – way back – in the cave – or even before the cave – what happened? Or, maybe I should first ask – what is civilization? Civilization is a social contract. People band together for mutual benefit – right? So, what is the first “banding” together for mutual benefit? It is a mother and a child. A mother and child is the first social contract and the foundation of all civilization. What holds a mother and child together – love. A mother loves her child because she loves herself. A mother loves herself because she learned love from her mother. A very practical dynamic – that - sets in motion a force - which humans use to propel themselves through life’s journey. What is the basis of civilization – it is the love bond between a mother and child. Love is a kind of contract between two beings. I call mother/child love the first human contract. It is an agreement to protect, nurture, cherish and persist. This contract is what gives civilization its start. More importantly – it is what holds civilization together – today and on into the future.

    Want to save the world – honor and cherish women – now. It is not a guarantee – but it is a good start. You want a better world – support your local love machine – mother and child.     — Thinker
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    Liberal, conservative, centrist, radical, socialist, fascist -- all the political terms that serve for facile quick identification fail once you try to get below their surface. Maybe this has been true for a very long time -- but I think it is a later 20th and 21st century problem. Part of the problem is abuse of terms, part of it misuse, and part of it is actual changes in political thinking. — Bitter Crank
    I think the problem is just that the terms are old. They carry a lot of baggage with them, which doesn't much reflect the world today. For example, conservative ideology developed as a response to a particular historical occurrence - the French Revolution - and obviously the problems we're dealing with today aren't the same at all. I think we need "fresh" terms.
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    This is an assumption based on behavior observed long, long after homo sapiens achieved species status. — Bitter Crank
    Sure, as I said in my first post, I'm referring to ever since recorded history. Of course you, nor I, can have evidence of what happened before. This however seems like sufficient evidence, especially when you consider men across different geographies, and you realise that no other animal worships. What's his face, G.K. Chesterton wrote very well about this in The Everlasting Man.

    Maybe Neanderthal and early homo sapien peoples were profoundly religious -- maybe not -- there just isn't any evidence, one way or the other. — Bitter Crank
    Sure, as I said there is no direct evidence for it. However, the earliest evidence we do have, suggests that man was religious from the beginning. Things seem to heavily point to religion being something intrinsic and particular to man.

    I commend a biography of Dorothy Day -- "A Harsh and Dreadful Love: Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement" by William D. Miller and "The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day" for a swift kick in your derriere by this likely-to-be-sainted Christian leftist. — Bitter Crank
    I think a swift kick in my couilles is better :P Thanks for those resources.

    There is an uncomfortable odor of fascist ideology here. I don't think you are a fascist. Yes, there are strains of Christian thinking that are very conservative. Dorothy Day was very conservative in her daily Mass attendance and her recognition of the authority of the church. That didn't stop her from being harshly critical of some highly UN-Christlike aspects of American tradition, culture, and continuity.

    Had Jesus followed your advice, he would have stuck with carpentry, gotten married, and fathered children--all that for tradition, culture, and continuity. Ditto for the 12 Apostles, Paul, and various saints, martyrs, missionaries, etc. down through the last 2000 years (and longer, if you count the OT prophets).

    Christianity is a sword--two sharp slicing sides. There is the dead-hand-of-history conservative side and the revolutionary claims of the Kingdom of God side, It's either-or.     — Bitter Crank
    I didn't mean to suggest that tradition should be BLINDLY respected. But neither should it be overthrown without reason or quickly. We must have respect for our ancestors, their work, and the traditions they have passed unto us, even when we proceed to modify them.

    It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

    Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.     — Russell Kirk

    I am probably less of a traditionalist than Mr. Kirk explains above, but I do share the general gist of that description. In fact, I'm starting to feel conservative is something of a misnomer with regards to many of my positions, especially with regards to economics, but there's no better label.
  • Are women generally submissive to men?
    I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men.

    I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.

    I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.

    I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.

    I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West.

    Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone).
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    "The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations -- and absolutely nothing more"

    A better life is one that has facilitated a person more toward actualizing virtue from a position of humility. — Heister Eggcart
    Maybe. However, I'm not so sure anymore that this is sufficient for a good life. Don't get me wrong, virtue (and humility) are necessary but ultimately insufficient. In the end, it does feel like virtue is the reaction to a decadent and corrupt world - virtue belongs to the warrior, and the warrior belongs to war. And of course, this world is itself a war-torn kingdom, and has always been such.

    There is always a fleeting sense of paradise, where there are no conflicts, people are grateful for what they have, and live in simplicity and peace. That is but a dream in this world - for one must always prepare for evil, time and time again. One cannot put down one's ruthlessness - the sword cannot be dropped, but must time and time be wielded to keep evil at bay. Marcus Aurelius dreamt of giving up his kingdom to live peacefully at the countryside - it never was more than a dream. It can never be more than a dream.

    If it becomes more than a dream, then that person, along with their family and relatives, are headed towards destruction. That is the danger of immanentizing the eschaton. But the eschaton is useful, as a source of motivation, so it cannot be dropped. There is a certain tension there at play - - - .

    Christianity accomplishes this more than any other religion — Heister Eggcart
    I agree, and would add that other religions aren't wrong, but just less correct.

    apart from some strains of Buddhism — Heister Eggcart
    • Do you say that these strains of Buddhism produce more of what you've identified as "the better life" than Christianity?
    • Which are these strains of Buddhism, and can you offer some examples of people who exemplify this better life?
    • What's your take on the coming disappearance of Buddhism as per the statistics I've presented?

    Because most religious folks are more concerned with issues of an afterlife instead of, "spending [their] heaven doing good on earth." — Heister Eggcart
    Good is a relative and not absolute term in the world. The good that is possible to achieve in the world is always tainted by evil, in that it may necessitate acts which are in themselves evil. Hence why we are prodded to be wise as serpents. A good King is also a ruthless king, and therein lies the paradox. A merciful master is also a cruel master - indeed must be such. Part of what makes them good (relatively) however, is their willingness to engage in such ambiguous acts.
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    better lives — Heister Eggcart
    What does a "better" life mean to you? And why are you unconvinced that a religion (take your pick) doesn't enable people to live better lives?
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    I don't see anything that needs to be moderated in the context of this discussion. — Baden
    Thank you.
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    @Baden @Sapientia Please tell us whether my previous post is considered evangelism.

    ↪0 thru 9


    Number 1, drop the political correctness. In my view (and moderators can correct me if I'm wrong), you're just trying to shut down discussion because you do not like what you hear. A philosophy forum is, unfortunately, a place where you do have to hear what you don't like to hear some of the time. This is your second attempt, after your first attempt at ridicule completely flopped.

    VagabondSpectre has a very strong opinion, which he has adequately expressed. He thinks that religious views will not even be taken seriously in the future. Is he evangelising, or is it only when the theist has strong beliefs that it's evangelism?

    Furthermore, I don't think you quite understand what evangelism is.

    It's defined by Baden himself:
    Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.
    I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm stating my views, and debating with another member, and each of us is providing justification for what we believe, and sharing what we believe.

    That would be obscuring the issue, which to repeat, is your engaging in evangelism. — 0 thru 9
    I don't think that's the issue at all, I think that's what you'd like the issue to be, so then you could shut down discussion. Typical leftist anti-religious tactics.

    starting apparently with the nihilistic atheists and the holders of other worldviews present here — 0 thru 9
    I think atheism (not all atheists) is having a negative effect on culture and society. Is that a problem? I'm not allowed to express that view or what's the matter?

    battle for the soul of man — 0 thru 9
    Well, again, I do think the conflict between atheism and religion is a battle for the soul of man. What's wrong with that? Where did I tell you that you should think the same too, or otherwise you're an idiot?

    because it appears that you believe it to be a settled matter. — 0 thru 9
    In-so-far as I have evidence to back up what I believe and arguments, then yes, I do believe I am right. Wouldn't you?

    Please understand this is not meant as an attack even on your beliefs or viewpoints, let alone on you as an individual or esteemed member of this forum. I am actually sympathetic to many of the views you hold, for whatever that is worth. I generally enjoy your posts, and admire your passion and scholarship. And I think for the most part, your posts show respect and courtesy. It is the approach that seems to me both unproductive and against the guidelines. Because I unfortunately have to say that here it seems that you are just pissing on anything that contradicts your manifesto, for lack of a better way to put it. — 0 thru 9
    Yes, I see you're smart, this certainly adds to the credibility of your post and thoughts :-} We call this pretence of being unbiased, it's a tactic that is often used and recommended to gain influence.

    And please don't suggest that if a sensitive soul is offended by your posts, not to read this thread. — 0 thru 9
    Well, unless the moderators think differently, that's precisely what I will suggest you do. And no, it wouldn't be obscuring the issue, because I'm not evangelising to begin with. So if you're offended, don't follow this thread anymore.

    Well, with that last post of yours it seems you have unabashedly become an evangelist, the preacher to save all of humanity ("battle for the soul of man"), starting apparently with the nihilistic atheists and the holders of other worldviews present here. — 0 thru 9
    Cite where I claimed to be a preacher to save all of humanity please. I think it's more likely that it's all in your mind.

    One could quote several individual sentences to support that — 0 thru 9
    Yeah, if you can do it, cite it. Otherwise there's no point.
  • Enlightened self interest versus simple altruism.
    But, then again wasn't Augustine a sinner before he became a saint? — Question
    Yes, he used to pray "God give me chastity, but not yet!" ;)
  • Enlightened self interest versus simple altruism.
    ↪Terrapin Station
    ↪Question
    Caveat: it includes lots of sex. ;)
  • Enlightened self interest versus simple altruism.
    He's not a good business man if he invests so much that losing it will leave him unable to feed his family. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Well then, I guess most businessmen aren't "good businessmen" then.

    These are all signs of bad business, and are not the type of risk that a good business man would take. — Metaphysician Undercover
    I don't know based on what you're saying they are signs of bad business. Sounds more like an excuse to me. It's like me saying "oh getting injured in a mine happened because he's just a bad worker".

    What makes you that laughing at the judicial system, even while it passes judgement on you, constitutes having power? — Metaphysician Undercover
    Except that as far as I'm aware they haven't been able to pass judgement on him, even till today.

    The one getting paid is actually in the position of having power, because that person can simply refuse to do what the other wants, requesting more and more money. — Metaphysician Undercover
    No, they can't. They'll be replaced by someone who is willing to do it for less. The rich man has the power. The other one doesn't. If he wants to get paid, he must obey. The rich man, if he wants whatever he wants done, doesn't have to obey anyone. If someone refuses to do what he asks, he just needs to go to the next person. There's always another one waiting. The rich man will in the end still get what he wants.

    Since the one whom you think has power, is obliged to pay the requests of the others, since he desires to have the feeling of power (that the others are following his orders), it is the others, the ones demanding money, and getting paid, who are having their orders followed, not the one paying. — Metaphysician Undercover
    No he's not obliged to pay anyone's requests in particular.

    Do you know what "fair-weather friend" means? He's only a friend while it is profitable to him. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Sure.

    And if that rich man is belligerent, the fair-weather friend will rapidly become an enemy. — Metaphysician Undercover
    That's if the fair-weather friend doesn't need the rich man's money.

    is the most difficult job — Metaphysician Undercover
    What do you mean by "difficult"? It's a job not worth doing based on purely rewards vs risk analysis. That's why it's difficult.

    So you assume a relation between law and power, such that law only exists through the means of enforcement. — Metaphysician Undercover
    In what sense is there a law against pickpocketing if no pickpocketer ever gets punished? We can agree that if there is a written law, and it is never enforced, then it actually doesn't exist at all. Really this is not rocket science MU.

    Now, you separate power from laws, saying that power does not necessarily enforce. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Power is more than simply the capacity to enforce laws, rules, etc. It also includes, for example, changing them.

    For example, you define power as the capacity to make people do what you want. — Metaphysician Undercover
    No, I haven't said it's just that. In fact, power has nothing with making people do what YOU want, only with making people do something.

    Suppose one has that capacity, power, wouldn't that person be making rules so that the others would be doing what is wanted? — Metaphysician Undercover
    No, a phone call can be enough.

    I think power is having people want to do what you want them to — Metaphysician Undercover
    Is Trump powerful?

    From this perspective, the powerful make rules and laws which the people obey because they want to obey them, not because of enforcement. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Riiiight, I guess we should remove all punishments from the law, people will just obey anyway. No punishment for breaking the law. Why the hell don't we do that?!

    They want to please you because what you say is logical, consistent, and meaningful, so they trust that in pleasing you, they are doing good tasks. — Metaphysician Undercover
    >:O >:O >:O Hahahaha! And clearly most people are very rational, and very capable to perceive that what you say is logical, consistent and meaningful.

    You think that the human will must be forced to follow laws. — Metaphysician Undercover
    What role do punishments for breaking the law play?

    And don't take it the wrong way, I agree that people willingly doing X because they believe it is good, right, etc. is part of power. It's just not the only thing though. That's important for people in your family to do and inner circle. You obviously won't enforce rules against your wife to obey, or on your friends, or closest associates, etc. Such relationships are built on sentiment. But business relationships aren't built on sentiment. I can tell one of my clients, "look, you have a decision to make, you either pay me X, or we won't be working together anymore" - if I were to say the same thing to my wife, she'll hit me in the face. Why? Because it's a different kind of relationship. Power doesn't function in the same way in both cases, which is the mistake you are making.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    If Russia colluded with Trump, then only so that Hillary couldn't get into office. I doubt cool and rational Putin would expect anything from his thin-skinned and bombastic Trumpite. Besides, it's fun to see how American's react with indignation and such anger when they get what they've been doing for years in the Middle East, South America, and Africa. — Question
    People like to fake being moral when they're not...
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    So do I, but I'm saying that this focus on the next world to come is ingrained in Theology itself. — Noble Dust
    Which is a problem. That's precisely why Church bureaucrats are no longer capable to adequately deal with what is happening. They're not pragmatic enough.

    In all seriousness, I have no clue why you think "the desire for god" was there "at the very beginning of mankind" (which is a controversial subject). — VagabondSpectre
    Worship is one of the first and most ancient actions of mankind. From the very beginning, man was religious. Man had a connection with the transcendent, which was obvious and evident - very different from all the rest of the animals. Cave paintings indicate this, early worship rituals indicate this. Man was on his knees worshipping divinity from the very earliest moments of recorded history. No civilisation exists without the concept of divinity. It is absolutely essential that what being human is.

    What evidence or actual argument do you have to indicate that spiritual health might have been an early human drive, and if so why did it necessarily include "god"? — VagabondSpectre
    I never spoke of spiritual health. I spoke of an innate desire for the divine.

    Babies themselves don't exactly have ordered thoughts because they haven't yet constructed an ordered mind through experience. A baby cannot tell the difference between it's mother leaving the room and going into non-existence. Are you telling me that babies wax philosophical about god or that all humans grow up to desire god? — VagabondSpectre
    And? What's your point? Babies are born with certain desires, including the desire for food, the desire for water and momma's breast, etc. They're even born with desires that don't manifest right away, like the desire for intimacy.

    That's well and good, you're an outlier, but your entire "birth rate" argument is predicated on the idea that parents will indoctrinate their children successfully. — VagabondSpectre
    Actually, statistically speaking, parents are quite successful at that. Christianity for example is losing a net 1.5 million adherents a year based on conversion data, but overall it is growing because of birth rate. Of course there are exceptions. And it's not indoctrination, it's simply introducing the child to things he would not otherwise be introduced to. Most of religious growth happens not because of conversions, but rather because of giving birth to new children, just so you know. Religion should also be taught in schools again. I studied religion in school, and looking back it was probably one of the most interesting classes I had to take at that young age. Much more interesting than math, history, and other bullshit.

    What do you mean "who is going to win"? Is it a competition? A battle? A war? — VagabondSpectre
    Yes it is absolutely a conflict for who will dictate the direction of society. If you haven't realised this until now, I don't know what to say. It's a battle for the soul of man.

    So you think that the west is going to croak in a pool of it's own un-Christian moral degeneracy because anything not god oriented clearly leads to no-good? — VagabondSpectre
    Yes, I am quite sure of that in fact. Man does not live on bread alone.

    While divorce rates are up, so too is the average standard of living (thanks secular hedonism!) — VagabondSpectre
    Right, I guess broken marriages are an increase in the standard of living. Never knew. :-}

    and happier lives in the west than they ever have before — VagabondSpectre
    Prove it. Stats actually show the opposite. People are more depressed and upset than ever, so I don't know what kind of pot you're smoking.

    For example http://college.usatoday.com/2016/10/22/depression-is-at-an-all-time-high-for-college-students/ .

    It seems that this is a mere repetition of your axiom that the better technology and comfort available, the better lives people will live. Despite the evidence, you just have to believe that, because that's what your atheism hinges on. Give people bread, pussy and "freedom" - and they'll be happy. Where's the evidence to back it up? Once again, my axiom which is better supported by evidence is that man does not live on bread alone, contrary to your own vile materialism.

    We're more free to choose how to live despite the hypocritical condemnations of those who choose to worship this or that specific idea. — VagabondSpectre
    No, you're actually not. You're less free than ever to choose. You are only given the illusion of freedom of choice. That's like telling a slave you're perfectly free to run away, you'll just get shot when you do. For example, how are you free to get married and have a life-long marriage when divorce rate is 50%+?

    There is no pure freedom. There is freedom to do something. You're less free to be moral today than before. You're less free to be happy today than before.

    America was founded on democracy, not on god. — VagabondSpectre
    Bullshit.

    We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — Declaration of Independence

    America is a nation founded first and foremost on God. That is why, even on your dollar bills, it is written "In God We Trust". It doesn't say "In The People We Trust"... And quite the contrary, America would count as a constitutional republic, by the way, not a democracy.

    http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

    You might be a bit late to the game on that one... — VagabondSpectre
    I don't think I am at all. I think I'm right on time.

    So once we renounce political correctness — VagabondSpectre
    Once we renounce political correctness, atheism/hedonism will have no means of defence anymore.


    What defence will someone like this have from being shouted off and kicked out of civilised society? She should be ashamed of herself (certainly not proud), and the rest of us should shun any dealings with her. Society needs to govern itself by showing individuals that they are not above the necessities of decent behaviour, and if they are, then they will be kicked out, or at least labelled and treated adequately. If she wants to be a prostitute, she should be absolutely free to be one.

    In the 1940's Britain was still castrating gays thanks to Christian values, thankfully though they realized the immorality of many of their dogmatic positions. — VagabondSpectre
    Sorry, but since when is castrating gays a Christian position? Where in the Bible does it say that if you find a homosexual you are to chop his balls off? Where in the Catechism, or the ecumenic councils, or any other official church position (either Orthodox or Catholic) do you find such nonsense?

    You Sir, don't even know what you're talking about.

    Which Christian value or values did the west abandon which triggered the beginning of it's collapse? — VagabondSpectre
    • Belief in a transcendent order.
    • Charity (real love, not the bullshit leftist version of it).
    • Belief in the purpose and meaning of life.
    • Duty (life is not here to enjoy it).
    • Courage.
    • Respect for tradition, culture and continuity.
    • The sanctity of marriage.
    • Chastity.
    • Devotion and selflessness.

    You can read more on a similar topic here.

    So we're going to be more prosperous than ever (thanks hedonism?) — VagabondSpectre
    No, I actually said we're going to be more prosperous than ever once religion takes over, not now.

    Buddhism seems more exotic, I think that would make me happier! — VagabondSpectre
    Buddhism is a failing and dying religion, and the statistics prove it. The people in the West who are interested in Buddhism don't generally have the commitment necessary to be "religious" - they're just wanna-bes. Without virtue, religion cannot flourish. Buddhism ruined itself when, greedily, it sought to take converts from Christianity by downplaying its own harsh morality. It's a failed religion. Look at the statistics I've posted. Buddhism will suffer the most out of all religions in the coming 50 years. There's absolutely no indication that Buddhism will prosper, apart from the media generated "hype".
  • A Case Against Human Rights?
    Last time I checked, same-sex marriage is not a freedom available for everyone. — TimeLine
    And should it be? Marriage is a religious institution, and should therefore obey religious rules and regulations. All major religions, without exception, condemn homosexual (and lesbian) sex as immoral, and don't allow marriages to occur between people of the same-sex. I include here Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism as among major religions.

    To enforce same-sex marriage as a possibility is to defame and humiliate an age-old custom which has existed for encouraging spiritual union between a man and a woman (because that's how marriage has been defined). There is no problem with allowing homosexuals to live together, share the same house, be in a civil union, etc. but to have them marry is not only an insult towards Western history and traditions, but also highly immoral. Just think of the priests that are asked to marry two homosexuals. They have a duty before the sovereign God to honour the institution of marriage. Would this not infringe upon their duty? Is this not another form of propaganda aimed at weakening the Church?
  • What will Mueller discover?
    'Cause you posted too many silly ones. :P — Mongrel
    And? At least you may have a little bit of fun watching them :P
  • What will Mueller discover?
    I don't play the videos you post. — Mongrel
    Why not?
  • What will Mueller discover?
    Yea. Whatever. — Mongrel
    What's the chicken rooster game?
  • What will Mueller discover?
    My pronunciation has been officially checked off by numerous Russians and Russian speakers while playing the chicken/rooster game with grass stems. I certainly wouldn't take the word of a Mongolian over them. — Mongrel
  • What will Mueller discover?
    Russian for chicken. — Mongrel
    :s no it's not... At least you'd not pronounce it that way. There's no "d" sound in it.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    ↪Mongrel
    What the hell is that?
  • Enlightened self interest versus simple altruism.
    We're talking about the risk which is directly related to the person's occupation. Those risks which you claim the owner is involved in, are unrelated, and are therefore not relevant to the discussion. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes they are related. If you're forced to sit on the chair all day long in an office, and be on the phone the whole time, that certainly is going to impact your health in a not so good way.

    The risk you referred to was the risk of loosing a pile of cash, and this is just an illusion of risk, a number in the ledger. How does a changing number in the ledger translate to real risk, so as to be comparable to the risk which the miner takes in going to work every day? — Metaphysician Undercover
    Losing a pile of cash is very relevant. He may not have money to feed his family if he loses a pile of cash. His aspirations to be an entrepreneur may be shattered. His credit-worthiness may be shattered. And so forth. Maybe if he took the money, or part of it, from the wrong person, he may even get shot. Or a competitor may arrange to have him killed. Or the government could get him in jail for not adequately following certain laws. Who knows - there's a lot of things that could potentially happen to the entrepreneur, that cannot happen to the worker.

    Judging by the content of the clip, he seems to already recognize that he has no real power. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Then tell me, why is he laughing at the judicial system?

    So which person in the film clip would you say has "power", Mr. Cummings, Mr Gowdy? Surely Mr.Shkreli demonstrates no capacity to tell anyone what to do. He claims the fifth. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Mr. Shkreli, because the others are not capable to get what they want out of him, and he openly mocks them. By openly mocking them, and showing them they have no authority over him, he is demonstrating power. He tells them, not verbally, but non-verbally, you can't do anything to me.

    There is contradiction inherent within this position though. If the rich person values money, and the fair-weather friend is relieving him of his money, to give him the illusion of power, then how can you say that the rich person is using the fair-weather friend? — Metaphysician Undercover
    Who said it is only an illusion of power? I've defined power in this case as having his orders followed. He can get his orders followed, therefore he is powerful.

    Clearly the opposite is the case. The fact that the term "fair-weather friend" is used, is evidence that the opposite is really the case. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Well it is true that the fair-weather friend also likes the arrangement, otherwise he wouldn't be doing favours for the rich man. Of course he's also profiting from it, but he doesn't get to decide on what gets done. Rather the rich man tells him do this, and he just does it.

    "Direct the march of society"? What does that mean? — Metaphysician Undercover
    It means deciding what will happen in the world. Why does that confuse you? It means deciding whether, for example, the Central Bank will print more dough or not.

    The capacity to set rules is not the same thing as inspiring people to follow rules. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Remember that rules only exist in-so-far as they are followed/enforced, so the capacity to set rules absolutely entails that others will follow them. Otherwise you're simply not setting rules, you're just kidding yourself.

    If I point guns at peoples' heads, and force them to follow rules, I can only point so many guns, and as soon as the people are out of my sights, they will not follow my rules. It's only a matter of a short period of time before one comes up behind me. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Right, you've discovered that brute force isn't a very good way to get mass obedience over the long term. That's true, Sun Tzu, and all other military strategists didn't think otherwise either.

    You've got this backwards. According to Plato, it's the people who want it the least, who are best suited to rule. They know it's the worst possible job to have, and will only take that job if the present ruler is so bad that living under this rule is worse than ruling. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Yes, obviously they should want it the least in the sense that it can be dangerous to themselves and their families. But they should want it the most in the sense that if they don't want it, someone worse than them will. So if you have the necessary capacities, you should try to rise to the top to prevent someone worse than you from doing it, even if doing so will put you and your family at risk.

    When power has to be "enforced", this is not true power, it is the illusion of power. — Metaphysician Undercover
    Nope, I didn't say power has to be enforced. Please read again.

    And so-called "power" through the use of force does not promote loyalty. — Metaphysician Undercover
    I agree, but loyalty is not necessary from everyone.

    I still don't know what you mean by "direction of society". Could you explicate? Society consists of a whole bunch of people. They are only going to go in the direction which they want to go. How could one person have the capacity to decide the direction of society? — Metaphysician Undercover
    By, for example, using their money to fund a certain ideology over another for example. Then one ideology will have more resources, and hence more capacity to disseminate through society (like George Soros does). By setting the laws which delimit what others can and can't do. By deciding what gets aired on TV (in the case they own media for example). And so forth. Really, you're asking quite naive questions it seems to me...
  • How I found God
    Is it? — TimeLine
    No no, it totally isn't, I guess it's there to train you to be a plumber... :-}

    Re-read your ridiculous posts; if you had an ounce of reason, you would see through what I was writing to ascertain the point of transcendental idealism but you are too arrogant and in your agitation and aggression say harsh and nasty things to people who are simply having a discussion. — TimeLine
    What are the harsh and nasty things I've said to you?

    I am talking to someone else, not you, and I am trying to talk as simple as I can. — TimeLine
    First off, in a thread, especially one where I have been an active participant, I can address whatever post I want, and so can you. So yeah, your post may not have been addressed to me, but if it bullshit it is my right to call it so.

    your viciousness is uncalled for. — TimeLine
    Look stop trying to play the victim. How was I vicious? You consider it vicious if someone tells you that your writing makes no sense? You don't know what vicious is then.

    you stalk my every post and say the same thing over and over and over — TimeLine
    No that's another fantasy of yours maybe, but I most certainly don't. I've seen you post in a couple of other threads today, and I don't even know what you've posted there, as I don't follow those threads. But yes, when you do cross my path, then if I think you're saying nonsense, I am entitled to call it out. That's what a forum and free discussion is about. So far you haven't addressed my challenges, and instead prefer to play the victim as if I did I don't know what to you. Pff. Grow up.

    And yes, I may have repeatedly complained about you using BS words which mean nothing like "rationally autonomous agents", "authenticity", etc. because you keep repeating them in literarily almost all posts of yours that I come across, and that's a problem. Do you really have no other ideas apart from these? :s So of course you get repeat responses if you say the same thing.
  • Post truth
    Not Wayfarer's boss. — andrewk
    Well, he most certainly is, because apparently Wayfarer keeps talking about him day in and day out.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    not nearly so well as Vlad has done on some of our contributors. . — Wayfarer
    Vlad? You meant Vladimir? >:O
  • How I found God
    Really? — TimeLine
    Yes, that's what law school is for, to train you as a lawyer.

    Apparently, you know everything and are not just some screaming lunatic. — TimeLine
    The statement you quoted is a logical conditional, so I'm not sure what you mean. And I'm neither a lunatic, nor screaming, I'm just asking you a few questions, which you seem to be purposefully avoiding.
  • How I found God
    As I said, I am not a trained lawyer. — TimeLine
    Did you attend law school? :s Or did you not? If you have attended law school, then you are trained as a lawyer, whether you've ever practiced as one or not.
  • How I found God
    I am not a trained lawyer. — TimeLine
    Were you trained as a lawyer? Did you attend law school?
  • How I found God
    I am not a lawyer. — TimeLine
    No, but you were trained as one, at least per your own previous admissions on the forums.

    You are merely projecting your own religious illusions by attempting to falsify what I say as it does not align with what you believe. — TimeLine
    Look. Just look at this sentence for God's sake. So I'm projecting some RELIGIOUS illusions by attempting to falsify what you say (how am I falsifying it, and how can falsifying something project religious illusions, and why for fucks sake religious and not political, sexual or of another nature?) because it doesn't align with what I believe.

    So tell me. Being a trained lawyer you should be capable to answer these questions in no uncertain and vague terms:

    • What are these religious illusions that I'm projecting?
    • How is attempting to falsify something a projection of illusions?
    • Where have I attempted to falsify what you said and how? (as far as I'm concerned you haven't said anything - it's a word salad, as I said).
    • What do I believe and how do you know that it doesn't align with these beliefs?
    • List the beliefs that I hold that are contrary to what you think you've said.
  • How I found God
    I am seriously tired of you. I think I need to now ignore your posts. — TimeLine
    I can't believe you're a trained lawyer and yet your statements are so darn incoherent (and repetitive, and beating around the bush, etc.) ... You should really make some effort to clarify what exactly is your message, what you're trying to say, what it means, etc. before making a post. It would help in your interactions. Don't just put together a bunch of "advanced sounding" words, and call that deep philosophy.
  • How I found God
    authentically — TimeLine
    ↪TimeLine
    At least you didn't repeat this again. Thank God.

    Now I don't know what to make of the illogical mess you have in there. So freedom (whose freedom, what freedom?) and empathy (towards whom?) enables you (how?) to transcend (move beyond) the illusion of subjective self-interest (so is there some objective self-interest too?) that we PROJECT to the external world (so apparently this self-interest is both subjective and projected to the external world).

    We decide reality as it subjectively appears to us so the actual activity of this experience is merely the cognition between the relationship of objects. — TimeLine
    We decide reality as it subjectively appears to us? Really? The actual activity (what activity?) of this experience (what experience, the experience of deciding reality? And what the hell does that mean?) is merely the cognition between the relationship of objects. Right, so I guess this cognition is situation BETWEEN a RELATIONSHIP of objects. I don't have a fucking clue where between a relationship of objects is situated.

    So space and time are "its" (I don't know what the hell this refers to) pure forms, while sensation is its matter (in what sense? matter as in content I guess?).

    This is all so messy, unclear, and incoherent that I can't but agree with you, because you're not saying anything. I cannot distinguish anything there that I could even disagree with in the first place. It's like a word salad.

    I am not smoking anything. You are just a snotty little boy. — TimeLine
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    Some may, and some leading "new atheists" may. But I don't think the average atheist has this view. — Noble Dust
    The average atheist today is a New Atheist.

    Do you want this world, or the world to come? — Noble Dust
    Both.

    This is a common misunderstanding that is floating around which is doing much damage. The irony, which Socrates best revealed, is that surprisingly, the person who most prepares for the next world, will also live the best kind of life in this world. I posted this over 1 year ago, read especially the underlined bits:

    Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. It is wrong because participants who engage in it hurt their own psyche, in ways that prevent them from fully enjoying intimacy. Sex has the potential to bring people together, but misused, it just shuts one inside of themselves even more. Someone who has sex without being committed loses out. Also, promiscuous sex betrays a character defect - it shows someone who cannot control their passions, and does not respect their body and mind and is easily lured by easy pleasure. In the end, Sapientia, regardless of what you think, virtue is its own reward, and the virtuous man, as Socrates said, "cannot be harmed, either in life or in death!". Or as Jesus said, "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven [Virtue] and ALL things shall be added unto you". Or to come back to Socrates: "Wealth does not bring about excellence, but EXCELLENCE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively". It is not sex that is bad, but the lack of virtue that underlies promiscuous sex that is bad. And if you think it's otherwise, then I think you are decieved and under the spell of an illusion, so I advise that you think carefully about this. By abandoning virtue, a man or a woman abandons that which makes everything else good in this world. That is why the first Biblical commandment was: "have no other Gods before me" - because virtue (God) makes ALL other things good, and nothing can be good without virtue. — Agustino
  • The Future Belongs to Christianity?
    Yes, and what does this stem from? — Noble Dust
    It stems from the fact that the atheists have created a world and a society which is profoundly anti-Christian. They have employed the means of social pressure and ridicule to make Christians ashamed of what they believe, and to make them feel inferior. They have made them feel that this is not their world, and they can't make a home here.
  • What will Mueller discover?
    ↪Wayfarer
    Yeah Wayfarer, you should be very careful, the Russians will take over the world, we're back in your Cold War days :-}

    Seems like the Cold War propaganda has done its job... 40-50 years later >:O
  • How I found God
    They thus become conscious of the collective that when they meet another of the same frame of mind, the dimensions can 'collide' just as particles collide with another to fuse and form a star. — TimeLine
    Perhaps because I am drug and alcohol free... :-O — TimeLine
    Okay I understand, but you certainly are smoking something. What are you smoking? :s >:O
Home » Agustino