Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
If you call me a Catholic, this also defines my attitude towards homosexuality.
Actually, it doesn't. On the Belgian forum, we have somebody who is Catholic, but who has totally different opinions. He's a progressive Catholic, they do exist. Luckily.
Would you like being called a heterophob?
People who say that only make themselves look like fools. I don't want heterosexuals to have less rights, I don't want to shoot in my own foot.
About the definition of homophobia, I prefer the one of Wikipedia over Conservapedia, yes.
Wikipedia: Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
Conservapedia: Homophobia would be an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, if it really existed. The current usage of terms like "homophobic" and "homophobe" imply that all opposition to homosexuality is crazy.
A rotten apple is always a problem and it always needs to be taken care of. It always spoils the barrel and the barrel is more important.
That is why the healthy apples can push the rotten apple out themselves of the barrel. For instance by social boycott.
And no, the rotten apple will not rotten the other ones. I do not follow the logic that allowing people to be selfish will make more people selfish, or that allowing people to use drugs will make more people to use drugs.
(I'll now answer your long post.)
Actually, it doesn't. On the Belgian forum, we have somebody who is Catholic, but who has totally different opinions. He's a progressive Catholic, they do exist. Luckily.
Would you like being called a heterophob?
People who say that only make themselves look like fools. I don't want heterosexuals to have less rights, I don't want to shoot in my own foot.
About the definition of homophobia, I prefer the one of Wikipedia over Conservapedia, yes.
Wikipedia: Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
Conservapedia: Homophobia would be an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, if it really existed. The current usage of terms like "homophobic" and "homophobe" imply that all opposition to homosexuality is crazy.
A rotten apple is always a problem and it always needs to be taken care of. It always spoils the barrel and the barrel is more important.
That is why the healthy apples can push the rotten apple out themselves of the barrel. For instance by social boycott.
And no, the rotten apple will not rotten the other ones. I do not follow the logic that allowing people to be selfish will make more people selfish, or that allowing people to use drugs will make more people to use drugs.
(I'll now answer your long post.)
Ok, it all comes down to your idea that taxes are immoral because they enable a common authority to distribute money differently than the sum of individuals would do by themselves.
Because taxes are theft, yes.
And that's just plain stupid especially if the same sum of individuals authorized the government to do so by means of election. It's not that someone pulled a gun on this sum of individuals and took away some natural right from them. No, they voted on elections and chose a group of people not having an agenda to abolish taxes for being evil. I really don't see what could possibly be immoral about taxes.
Yes, one natural right (private property, right on the benefits of your own body) is taken away by taxes. We shouldn't vote on that. Nobody should be forced to accept the will of the majority on one issue. I'm not such a democrat. Democracy (like you described it here) is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat.
Health and culture are not only products. They are also basic human rights.
No. Culture is most certainly not a human right. Health is a mixed one. It is one's right that his health is not harmed by the action of another person. It is not a right to be healthy though. Otherwise somebody's right would be violated if he got cancer for instance. That right is not enforceable.
I feel obliged to help my neighbor if he gets terminally ill and has no insurance. It's the right thing to do. It would be immoral of me to turn my head away.
Exactly.
People who are able to do that shouldn't get economic benefits from such an "ability". So, I prefer if a common authority decides that it's the right thing to do and that we will all participate in providing some degree of health insurance, ideally universal.
Then boycott those people. Make their lives miserable. But don't force them to act accordingly to YOUR moral principles.
everybody needs health insurance. Being without it is quite irresponsible.
It should not be forbidden to be irresponsible (when it only affects you).
It is moral to force it upon people and to make it illegal to be without it.
I beg to differ.
Just take music for example. Classical music which has the greatest and most lasting value and which takes the most talent and effort to produce would never exist if left solely to the market criteria. We would only have it in the form of film music for shitty Hollywood.
First of all, YOU think classical music is the greatest and has the most lasting value. (And I agree on that.) But it is every human's right to think differently. Why would your taste of music be any more objective than somebody else's?
Secondly, classical music would most certainly survive. Especially classical music. That kind of music is very often appreciated by the very rich, so financing that will not be an issue. Classical music would not disappear. In fact, I can't think of any genre of music that wouldn't survive unless some genre almost nobody listens to.
The comparison of government to parent is not wrong. The only difference is that we can change the government if we don't like what it does to us so it is more motivated to please us which is actually a blessing in disguise.
The government is more like a partner if you want it to compare with a real relationship. We are adults. Your kids aren't. That's the big difference.
And I don't want to open another front discussing what caused the crisis. I will just say that my views on key issues are completely different than yours. You have replaced the cause and the consequence which is a usual mistake when analyzing complex organisms such as the economy.
I beg to differ. You're switching cause and consequence ;-)
Because taxes are theft, yes.
And that's just plain stupid especially if the same sum of individuals authorized the government to do so by means of election. It's not that someone pulled a gun on this sum of individuals and took away some natural right from them. No, they voted on elections and chose a group of people not having an agenda to abolish taxes for being evil. I really don't see what could possibly be immoral about taxes.
Yes, one natural right (private property, right on the benefits of your own body) is taken away by taxes. We shouldn't vote on that. Nobody should be forced to accept the will of the majority on one issue. I'm not such a democrat. Democracy (like you described it here) is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat.
Health and culture are not only products. They are also basic human rights.
No. Culture is most certainly not a human right. Health is a mixed one. It is one's right that his health is not harmed by the action of another person. It is not a right to be healthy though. Otherwise somebody's right would be violated if he got cancer for instance. That right is not enforceable.
I feel obliged to help my neighbor if he gets terminally ill and has no insurance. It's the right thing to do. It would be immoral of me to turn my head away.
Exactly.
People who are able to do that shouldn't get economic benefits from such an "ability". So, I prefer if a common authority decides that it's the right thing to do and that we will all participate in providing some degree of health insurance, ideally universal.
Then boycott those people. Make their lives miserable. But don't force them to act accordingly to YOUR moral principles.
everybody needs health insurance. Being without it is quite irresponsible.
It should not be forbidden to be irresponsible (when it only affects you).
It is moral to force it upon people and to make it illegal to be without it.
I beg to differ.
Just take music for example. Classical music which has the greatest and most lasting value and which takes the most talent and effort to produce would never exist if left solely to the market criteria. We would only have it in the form of film music for shitty Hollywood.
First of all, YOU think classical music is the greatest and has the most lasting value. (And I agree on that.) But it is every human's right to think differently. Why would your taste of music be any more objective than somebody else's?
Secondly, classical music would most certainly survive. Especially classical music. That kind of music is very often appreciated by the very rich, so financing that will not be an issue. Classical music would not disappear. In fact, I can't think of any genre of music that wouldn't survive unless some genre almost nobody listens to.
The comparison of government to parent is not wrong. The only difference is that we can change the government if we don't like what it does to us so it is more motivated to please us which is actually a blessing in disguise.
The government is more like a partner if you want it to compare with a real relationship. We are adults. Your kids aren't. That's the big difference.
And I don't want to open another front discussing what caused the crisis. I will just say that my views on key issues are completely different than yours. You have replaced the cause and the consequence which is a usual mistake when analyzing complex organisms such as the economy.
I beg to differ. You're switching cause and consequence ;-)
Actually, it doesn't. On the Belgian forum, we have somebody who is Catholic, but who has totally different opinions. He's a progressive Catholic, they do exist. Luckily.
So? Just another example of manipulating with names. He can call himself an FSM Catholic for all I care. You know what Catholic is but you'd rather have a reason for calling me a different name. The one you choose and the one I don't like nor respond to. All the ingredients of an insult there.
People who say that only make themselves look like fools. I don't want heterosexuals to have less rights, I don't want to shoot in my own foot.
I don't know... You seem like a heterophob to me anyway.
That is why the healthy apples can push the rotten apple out themselves of the barrel. For instance by social boycott.
Naaah. I like to pay the government to do the dirty work for me. I have better things to do.
And no, the rotten apple will not rotten the other ones. I do not follow the logic that allowing people to be selfish will make more people selfish, or that allowing people to use drugs will make more people to use drugs.
And that's the whole problem. You don't understand the difference between positive and negative selection.
So? Just another example of manipulating with names. He can call himself an FSM Catholic for all I care. You know what Catholic is but you'd rather have a reason for calling me a different name. The one you choose and the one I don't like nor respond to. All the ingredients of an insult there.
People who say that only make themselves look like fools. I don't want heterosexuals to have less rights, I don't want to shoot in my own foot.
I don't know... You seem like a heterophob to me anyway.
That is why the healthy apples can push the rotten apple out themselves of the barrel. For instance by social boycott.
Naaah. I like to pay the government to do the dirty work for me. I have better things to do.
And no, the rotten apple will not rotten the other ones. I do not follow the logic that allowing people to be selfish will make more people selfish, or that allowing people to use drugs will make more people to use drugs.
And that's the whole problem. You don't understand the difference between positive and negative selection.
All the ingredients of an insult there.
All I'm saying is that catholicism covers a variety of opinions. Is that an insult?
I don't know... You seem like a heterophob to me anyway.
You seem like a tree to me. What's the point of saying that? Nothing.
Naaah. I like to pay the government to do the dirty work for me. I have better things to do.
Then pay them. But don't force me to do the same.
And that's the whole problem. You don't understand the difference between positive and negative selection.
I'd like it if you would stop saying "you don't understand" when I disagree.
All I'm saying is that catholicism covers a variety of opinions. Is that an insult?
I don't know... You seem like a heterophob to me anyway.
You seem like a tree to me. What's the point of saying that? Nothing.
Naaah. I like to pay the government to do the dirty work for me. I have better things to do.
Then pay them. But don't force me to do the same.
And that's the whole problem. You don't understand the difference between positive and negative selection.
I'd like it if you would stop saying "you don't understand" when I disagree.
Because taxes are theft, yes.
And you're a dadaist, yes.
Democracy (like you described it here) is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat.
Exactly. It's the best we have and we're quite happy when they manage to split the sheep in half. There are some ideas that they all starve to death because it's immoral to eat sheep but fortunately we tell these people to shut up at least during lunch. ;)
Then boycott those people. Make their lives miserable.
Yes, I will. I will collect taxes from them. ;)
It should not be forbidden to be irresponsible (when it only affects you).
It should always be penalized. That's called positive selection.
Why would your taste of music be any more objective than somebody else's?
I can't explain this. I am only extremely thankful for that. ;)
classical music would most certainly survive
I don't want it to survive. I want it to lead a decent life as it deserves.
The government is more like a partner if you want it to compare with a real relationship. We are adults. Your kids aren't. That's the big difference.
Well, nominally yes so that no one gets offended but in practice no because most people are idiots. That's why market principles have to be corrected anyway. If people would understand classical music, we would solve one reason for government intervention.
You remind me of an aphorism. "In theory, your ideas are practically possible. But in practice, they are even theoretically impossible." ;)
And you're a dadaist, yes.
Democracy (like you described it here) is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat.
Exactly. It's the best we have and we're quite happy when they manage to split the sheep in half. There are some ideas that they all starve to death because it's immoral to eat sheep but fortunately we tell these people to shut up at least during lunch. ;)
Then boycott those people. Make their lives miserable.
Yes, I will. I will collect taxes from them. ;)
It should not be forbidden to be irresponsible (when it only affects you).
It should always be penalized. That's called positive selection.
Why would your taste of music be any more objective than somebody else's?
I can't explain this. I am only extremely thankful for that. ;)
classical music would most certainly survive
I don't want it to survive. I want it to lead a decent life as it deserves.
The government is more like a partner if you want it to compare with a real relationship. We are adults. Your kids aren't. That's the big difference.
Well, nominally yes so that no one gets offended but in practice no because most people are idiots. That's why market principles have to be corrected anyway. If people would understand classical music, we would solve one reason for government intervention.
You remind me of an aphorism. "In theory, your ideas are practically possible. But in practice, they are even theoretically impossible." ;)
All I'm saying is that catholicism covers a variety of opinions. Is that an insult?
Well, it doesn't. Catholics believe in the teachings of Catholic Church. Others need a different name because this one is occupied for 2 mileniums already. That's not an insult. It's an inaccuracy. Calling me a homophob is an insult because I don't like being called that way and because you can call me differently.
You seem like a tree to me. What's the point of saying that? Nothing.
Well, under the definition on conservapedia, you're a heterophob. That's the point. I like that definition more than I like wikipedia's. What can I do?
Then pay them. But don't force me to do the same.
No, no, no. I don't pay the government that you also voted. No, thank you.
I'd like it if you would stop saying "you don't understand" when I disagree.
OK, I'll try to stop. But could you please try understanding better? :)
Well, it doesn't. Catholics believe in the teachings of Catholic Church. Others need a different name because this one is occupied for 2 mileniums already. That's not an insult. It's an inaccuracy. Calling me a homophob is an insult because I don't like being called that way and because you can call me differently.
You seem like a tree to me. What's the point of saying that? Nothing.
Well, under the definition on conservapedia, you're a heterophob. That's the point. I like that definition more than I like wikipedia's. What can I do?
Then pay them. But don't force me to do the same.
No, no, no. I don't pay the government that you also voted. No, thank you.
I'd like it if you would stop saying "you don't understand" when I disagree.
OK, I'll try to stop. But could you please try understanding better? :)
That's not worthy of any reply, I'm sorry.
You remind me of an aphorism. "In theory, your ideas are practically possible. But in practice, they are even theoretically impossible."
I know this one of Yogi Berra. "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't."
You remind me of an aphorism. "In theory, your ideas are practically possible. But in practice, they are even theoretically impossible."
I know this one of Yogi Berra. "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't."
Catholics believe in the teachings of Catholic Church.
I thought believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ was more important.
Calling me a homophob is an insult because I don't like being called that way and because you can call me differently.
Then how should I call you?
Well, under the definition on conservapedia, you're a heterophob. That's the point. I like that definition more than I like wikipedia's. What can I do?
Conservapedia suggests homophobia doesn't exist. If you'd be consequent, heterophobia shouldn't exist either.
I thought believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ was more important.
Calling me a homophob is an insult because I don't like being called that way and because you can call me differently.
Then how should I call you?
Well, under the definition on conservapedia, you're a heterophob. That's the point. I like that definition more than I like wikipedia's. What can I do?
Conservapedia suggests homophobia doesn't exist. If you'd be consequent, heterophobia shouldn't exist either.
but who has totally different opinions. He's a progressive Catholic,
it had to be self called catholic, cos any part of official church will not accept him as its member :-)
it had to be self called catholic, cos any part of official church will not accept him as its member :-)
you write about everything too theoretically... like fairy tale... some of you ideas can be implemented but in far-right way as you wrote about taxes/no taxes and so....
you can not say that taxes are robbery, you can say that low taxes are better than higher maybe, but no taxes is fairy tale.
you can not say that taxes are robbery, you can say that low taxes are better than higher maybe, but no taxes is fairy tale.
it had to be self called catholic, cos any part of official church will not accept him as its member :-)
Well, if you are baptized and you had your confirmation, you're a member, aren't you?
you write about everything too theoretically... like fairy tale... some of you ideas can be implemented but in far-right way as you wrote about taxes/no taxes and so....
Please make a distinction between far-right and libertarian. They are very different. Very different.
you can not say that taxes are robbery, you can say that low taxes are better than higher maybe, but no taxes is fairy tale.
I can and I am.
Well, if you are baptized and you had your confirmation, you're a member, aren't you?
you write about everything too theoretically... like fairy tale... some of you ideas can be implemented but in far-right way as you wrote about taxes/no taxes and so....
Please make a distinction between far-right and libertarian. They are very different. Very different.
you can not say that taxes are robbery, you can say that low taxes are better than higher maybe, but no taxes is fairy tale.
I can and I am.
actually, there are tens or hundreds derivatives of catholic church, but catholic church is just one, that one in Vatican, all others are just supermarket products, so yes self-called member :-)
(if you dont agree then I can make a statement too, I am new catholic church and I am the biggest cool priest there and I am saint of course :-D )
But it is for different topic and not my problem, I am atheist :-)
-----------
@second...
As I said talking about level of taxes can liberal but talking about no taxes is more as anarchy, so far-right was adequate.
history show us many proves that every nation/state/group need organization and rules and also same basic principles, human rights and so and have such a structure need taxes to exist :-). Why would we have police when murders like killing? They will not want it, so society need implement some principles by force and this is able just with some resources - taxes.
And also I think that money and power is not the main goal why is there human race :-). So we need some taxes to make society better.
btw, I am voting libertarian parties in slovakia....but you are just too theoretical, maybe too young ? :-)
(if you dont agree then I can make a statement too, I am new catholic church and I am the biggest cool priest there and I am saint of course :-D )
But it is for different topic and not my problem, I am atheist :-)
-----------
@second...
As I said talking about level of taxes can liberal but talking about no taxes is more as anarchy, so far-right was adequate.
history show us many proves that every nation/state/group need organization and rules and also same basic principles, human rights and so and have such a structure need taxes to exist :-). Why would we have police when murders like killing? They will not want it, so society need implement some principles by force and this is able just with some resources - taxes.
And also I think that money and power is not the main goal why is there human race :-). So we need some taxes to make society better.
btw, I am voting libertarian parties in slovakia....but you are just too theoretical, maybe too young ? :-)
Their is only one Roman Catholic Church. Technically, I'm a member too :-(
As I said talking about level of taxes can liberal but talking about no taxes is more as anarchy, so far-right was adequate.
You obviously don't know what far-right and/or libertarianism is. Libertarianism is neither right nor left. Far-right is extreme conservatism, often combined with xenophobic and classical nationalist (collectivist) ideas.
The rest just shows you still don't get what I stand far, and quite frankly, I'm tired of explaining it.
And what party in Slovakia is libertarian?
Edit: I guess you mean SaS.
(editado)
As I said talking about level of taxes can liberal but talking about no taxes is more as anarchy, so far-right was adequate.
You obviously don't know what far-right and/or libertarianism is. Libertarianism is neither right nor left. Far-right is extreme conservatism, often combined with xenophobic and classical nationalist (collectivist) ideas.
The rest just shows you still don't get what I stand far, and quite frankly, I'm tired of explaining it.
And what party in Slovakia is libertarian?
Edit: I guess you mean SaS.
(editado)
I thought even you would agree on it..
You thought wrong.
well it's quite easy:
1-the best allocation of resources don't happen because market operator don't do only rational choices
2-the best allocation of resources don't happen because market operator don't have all the information, and the information asimmetry between offer and demand produce inefficence.
3-the best allocation of resources is impossible because free market doesn't permit it, until every operator, searchin' for its profit make choices to obstacolate others operators to invade its markets.
4-the best allocation of resources is impossible for the typology of some type of product/services that NEED (or that is unavoidable that it end) to be run by monopoly (or trusts, that's the same)
5-the capitalistic libertarian theory is impossible even in political way- In facts:
a)poors will fight against it, because it make them like slaves
b)medium classes will fight against it, because it make them unsure of their human and economic standards
c)higher classes will avoid it, because:
c1) they'll try to overtake them to become a regime
c2) they don't get the best possible performance from their capitals.
I think my poor english can describe the OBVIOUS only to this limit. but those are simple facts everybody studies economy must know...
You thought wrong.
well it's quite easy:
1-the best allocation of resources don't happen because market operator don't do only rational choices
2-the best allocation of resources don't happen because market operator don't have all the information, and the information asimmetry between offer and demand produce inefficence.
3-the best allocation of resources is impossible because free market doesn't permit it, until every operator, searchin' for its profit make choices to obstacolate others operators to invade its markets.
4-the best allocation of resources is impossible for the typology of some type of product/services that NEED (or that is unavoidable that it end) to be run by monopoly (or trusts, that's the same)
5-the capitalistic libertarian theory is impossible even in political way- In facts:
a)poors will fight against it, because it make them like slaves
b)medium classes will fight against it, because it make them unsure of their human and economic standards
c)higher classes will avoid it, because:
c1) they'll try to overtake them to become a regime
c2) they don't get the best possible performance from their capitals.
I think my poor english can describe the OBVIOUS only to this limit. but those are simple facts everybody studies economy must know...
Just one more thing: what is 'the best allocation of resources' according to you?
Well, it doesn't. Catholics believe in the teachings of Catholic Church. Others need a different name because this one is occupied for 2 mileniums already. That's not an insult. It's an inaccuracy. Calling me a homophob is an insult because I don't like being called that way and because you can call me differently.
One could argue that catholics today can't call themselves catholics because catholicism has changed over time.
I bet that if you presented a modern one to an "original" one, the latter would say that the former isn't a real catholic.
What I'm trying to say is that just because a religion moves in a slightly different direction, it doesn't mean it has to be called something similar.
One could argue that catholics today can't call themselves catholics because catholicism has changed over time.
I bet that if you presented a modern one to an "original" one, the latter would say that the former isn't a real catholic.
What I'm trying to say is that just because a religion moves in a slightly different direction, it doesn't mean it has to be called something similar.