Love The Stranger As Thyself

tooldtocare wrote:Pappilon;

1)Never mix religious topics in the Politics section. No religion there.

The USA constitution specifies separation of Church & State (it’s the law)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an Internet Lawyer on our hands who, as is usual for the species, doesn't have a clue.

Separation of Church and State is a binding principle for the government, not private actors (such as, for example, the moderation staff of a small internet forum). There are areas where that principle can be argued to bind private actors as well, but this isn't one of them.

2) Religion discussions are supposed o be off limits in free Range as well.

Think not; free range = free speech

Again, wrong: "Free Range" here means what Duckk defines it to mean. If that means that topics discussing the care and feeding of ponies are off-limits, then they are. In this forum, you play by Duckks' and RFC's rules or you don't play at all.

3) have no philosophical prob with general religion discussions of compare/contrast & basic theology, but this is too far out there for my *I survived 12 years of Catholic school* brain.

Your’ doing great, just say what is on your mind.
I hear you
(:-

Do you? I mean, here you are, arguing that this topic is religious and thus doesn't deserve to be punted to the politics section and at the same time you are posting this with overt political intent. You keep mixing in news bits about Israeli/Palestinian politics, you started this "discussion" with the explicit intent of shaping those politics (quite how THAT's supposed to work isn't clear to me; as far as I am aware, none of the regular posters here are in any position to affect the middle east situation in any form); this is as political as it gets.

I said I wouldn't revisit but got bored so I have done so, apologies for previously lying.
What gets me about this is that apparently we are supposed to read extracts from documents written several thousand's of years ago in one small society, and then extend them out to interpret current events.
If so, why aren't we looking at ancient writings from all the other cultures (many of which were larger and more literate)? Asia in general, India, China, South America, Scandinavia and others come to mind.
Every religious person seems to believe that their interpretation of their version of their religion is the only right one. Possibly thousands of religions, each of which have many sects or varieties. Much hubris to believe that yours is the real deal.

Yes, the only point most religions agree on is that all other religions are full of shit.
It's also the one point I agree on.

Imaginos1892 says:
Yes, the only point most religions agree on is that all other religions are full of shit. It's also the one point I agree on.

You fail to see the forest for the trees

All the religions you speak about have one thing in common~~

5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
6 “You shall not murder.
7 “You shall not commit adultery.
8 “You shall not steal.
9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.”

Even if you have no “faith” you still believe in the above
Such is life (:-

Not all religions.
Anyway -
Number 7 is not adhered to much these days.
Number 8 would close Wall Street.
Number 9 would stop advertising, politics, and barristers (attorneys).
Number 10 has a slight problem that not coveting your neighbor's male or female servant, nor anything that is your neighbor's, implies that slavery is OK.

If you are going to go all old testament, what is your position regarding slavery, marrying children, stoning adulterous wives, or putting drunken sons to the sword?

Daryl’s quoted statements below and my response to them~

Not all religions.
Anyway -
Number 7 is not adhered to much these days.

Actually #7 is adhered too; far more than in the past

Number 8 would close Wall Street.

I disagree, you don’t have to steal to make a profit

Number 9 would stop advertising, politics, and barristers (attorneys).

If you believe in what you said then believe it. The rest of us know what is meant by that verse and follow it as best we can.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

Number 10 has a slight problem that not coveting your neighbor's male or female servant, nor anything that is your neighbor's, implies that slavery is OK.

The US Civil War settled that debate. More lives were lost in our civil War than WW1 & WW2 combined. The winning side abolished slavery & it will not return, period.

If you are going to go all old testament, what is your position regarding slavery, marrying children, stoning adulterous wives, or putting drunken sons to the sword?

I am against everything you stated above & I find it hard to believe that you would condone these acts as well.

tooldtocare wrote:Actually #7 is adhered too; far more than in the past

Hah, no. I guess someone is too old to care about finding out what people who are not old are doing.

Number 8 would close Wall Street.

I disagree, you don’t have to steal to make a profit

Capitalism is just stealing dressed up pretty. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right.

The US Civil War settled that debate. More lives were lost in our civil War than WW1 & WW2 combined. The winning side abolished slavery & it will not return, period.

Oh my god, you actually believe this? The US civil war produced something on the order of 1.6 million casualties (both fatal and non-fatal), affecting an estimated 0.1% of the then living world population. World War 2 alone killed something like 3.7% of the then-living world population, and it wounded rather a lot more.

If you can't even get something that easy right, why should you be trusted about any historical analysis?

(Also, parenthetically: Slavery has not been abolished. Just because minimum or below-minimum wage employees aren't technically the property of their employers doesn't make them that much more free)

I am against everything you stated above & I find it hard to believe that you would condone these acts as well.

Your holy book does.

The E wrote:Capitalism is just stealing dressed up pretty. Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's right.

No, no, I call bullshit on that one. The fact that some parasites use 'Capitalism' as an excuse to steal doesn't condemn the whole concept. Capitalism means that you have the right to own things, and that nobody has any right to take what you own. It means that you own your labor, and the money you are paid for it. It means you can invest that money in a business, either one you start yourself or an existing one, to make more money.

Like Winston Churchill said about democracy, it's the worst economic system ever devised — except for all the rest.

The E wrote:(Also, parenthetically: Slavery has not been abolished. Just because minimum or below-minimum wage employees aren't technically the property of their employers doesn't make them that much more free)

Bullshit again. Low-paid employees are free to work hard, learn, improve themselves and get raises, promotions or find better jobs. It's not the employer's fault if they are too lazy to do so. Unskilled labor is not worth much, to an employer or to the economy. It is not reasonable to expect to make a career and raise a family by bagging groceries or flipping burgers.

If the pay for unskilled labor is arbitrarily set to more than it is worth, it will devalue the currency until they are again equivalent. There's a reason the US dollar has devalued by more than 95% in the last century, and other currencies have devalued even more. Calling it 'inflation' doesn't make it any less real.

The E wrote:Oh my god, you actually believe this? The US civil war produced something on the order of 1.6 million casualties (both fatal and non-fatal), affecting an estimated 0.1% of the then living world population. World War 2 alone killed something like 3.7% of the then-living world population, and it wounded rather a lot more.

An awful lot of Americans died in the Civil War, because the casualties on both sides were Americans. And because it was pretty much the last stand of Napoleonic tactics. He's just ignoring all the non-American casualties of the world wars. I guess they didn't count.
———————————
Under Capitalism, man exploits man.
Under Communism, it's the other way around.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Yeaaaah, this thread deserves to get Ducck'd. In fact, it should probably be deleted.

I will go if yoyu ask (:-

Imaginos1892 wrote:No, no, I call bullshit on that one. The fact that some parasites use 'Capitalism' as an excuse to steal doesn't condemn the whole concept. Capitalism means that you have the right to own things, and that nobody has any right to take what you own. It means that you own your labor, and the money you are paid for it. It means you can invest that money in a business, either one you start yourself or an existing one, to make more money.

Capitalism means that the acquisition of capital is superordinate to other human desires. That everything can and indeed must be evaluated in how it can affect our accumulated capital.

I think we have different concepts of what constitutes a parasite here. To me, capitalism is a parasite, not entirely unlike those little creepies that subvert other organisms and alter their behaviours to perpetuate themselves. Humans, in general, hold cooperation and community in higher esteem than the lone wolf atop his mountain; Capitalism, at its most pure, holds only contempt for cooperation and community and praises the parasite who is able to con the most people into giving him money.

Like Winston Churchill said about democracy, it's the worst economic system ever devised — except for all the rest.

And yet, we can only make capitalism work for humans by actively acting counter to its precepts. Capitalism thrives on inequality; without inequality, it posits, we cannot be motivated. And yet, when that inequality becomes unbearable, when it is becoming clear that whatever capital we accumulate means nothing next to the capital accumulated by a very few, that, at some level, us ordinary humans are just exchangeable parts in a machine, it holds no answer. There is no corrective mechanism in capitalism, no way to ensure that "a rising tide lifts all boats", as it were. Indeed, to the capitalist, the institution of corrective mechanisms is something to fight against.

Bullshit again. Low-paid employees are free to work hard, learn, improve themselves and get raises, promotions or find better jobs. It's not the employer's fault if they are too lazy to do so. Unskilled labor is not worth much, to an employer or to the economy. It is not reasonable to expect to make a career and raise a family by bagging groceries or flipping burgers.

You have a very rose-tinted view of the opportunities the average person is able to get. Tell me, have you ever lived in actual working poverty? The kind where you're working 40 hours a week and barely make a living, the kind where you are just too soul-crushed at the end of each day to seek out opportunities, let alone use them?

If the pay for unskilled labor is arbitrarily set to more than it is worth, it will devalue the currency until they are again equivalent. There's a reason the US dollar has devalued by more than 95% in the last century, and other currencies have devalued even more. Calling it 'inflation' doesn't make it any less real.

So what is your explanation for real wages stagnating for decades? For increasing inequality between workers and capitalists? Do finance managers do that much more good work that they deserve to earn a hundred or a thousand times what a normal worker does?

Under Capitalism, man exploits man.
Under Communism, it's the other way around.

Only if you are an american who (for cultural and historical reasons) has no idea what communism actually is and wants.