Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
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.
True, but after they starting critise whole eu and euro, I stop voting them. Eu with its huge mistakes is still good project.
True, but after they starting critise whole eu and euro, I stop voting them.
And I assume they are pro-gay marriage too?
Voting libertarian and then stop voting on them because they criticize EU is strange. That's like stopping to vote socialist because they raise the capital gains tax.
And I assume they are pro-gay marriage too?
Voting libertarian and then stop voting on them because they criticize EU is strange. That's like stopping to vote socialist because they raise the capital gains tax.
I suppose they have same opinion as I have, so legal partnership (not marriage) and no adoption but I am not sure.
SAS was pro EU too, just they see problems there and they build up their voting potential on criticizing EU now. There is just one way how can small economics survive without EU, being socialism or better communistic country so it is stupid want go out from EU now. Every economist know that if our GPD is 75% based on export we can now go out from EU.
But I am happy that they said "no" for loans for lazy greeks :-). It was/still are lost money.
SAS was pro EU too, just they see problems there and they build up their voting potential on criticizing EU now. There is just one way how can small economics survive without EU, being socialism or better communistic country so it is stupid want go out from EU now. Every economist know that if our GPD is 75% based on export we can now go out from EU.
But I am happy that they said "no" for loans for lazy greeks :-). It was/still are lost money.
I use word far-right when something is too extreme, far-left=communism, far-right=anarchy.
Liberalism is something different as you think. Liberalism is different from anarchy by the fact they they accept needs of state as an authority to protect basic rights.
Liberalism is something different as you think. Liberalism is different from anarchy by the fact they they accept needs of state as an authority to protect basic rights.
I suppose they have same opinion as I have, so legal partnership (not marriage) and no adoption but I am not sure.
If that's the case, they're not libertarian.
Edit: Wiki says they are pro drugs liberalization and pro same-sex marriage.
There is just one way how can small economics survive without EU, being socialism or better communistic country so it is stupid want go out from EU now. Every economist know that if our GPD is 75% based on export we can now go out from EU.
Switzerland. Norway. Liechtenstein. What about them? Small countries, outside EU, rich as hell. The EU isn't needed for free trade.
I use word far-right when something is too extreme, far-left=communism, far-right=anarchy.
Then you're misusing the word far-right. Far-right is used for people like Haider, Le Pen, Wilders or parties like Jobbik.
Far-right is not anarchy, it's rather fascist. Anarchy is far-left.
Liberalism is something different as you think. Liberalism is different from anarchy by the fact they they accept needs of state as an authority to protect basic rights.
Am I an anarchist? No. Do I know that liberalism is not anarchy? Yes. Do I know what liberalism is? Yes.
Do you?
Of course I accept the state as a necessary evil. I've never denied that nor will I ever do. Please read what I write instead of assuming things that simply aren't true.
(editado)
If that's the case, they're not libertarian.
Edit: Wiki says they are pro drugs liberalization and pro same-sex marriage.
There is just one way how can small economics survive without EU, being socialism or better communistic country so it is stupid want go out from EU now. Every economist know that if our GPD is 75% based on export we can now go out from EU.
Switzerland. Norway. Liechtenstein. What about them? Small countries, outside EU, rich as hell. The EU isn't needed for free trade.
I use word far-right when something is too extreme, far-left=communism, far-right=anarchy.
Then you're misusing the word far-right. Far-right is used for people like Haider, Le Pen, Wilders or parties like Jobbik.
Far-right is not anarchy, it's rather fascist. Anarchy is far-left.
Liberalism is something different as you think. Liberalism is different from anarchy by the fact they they accept needs of state as an authority to protect basic rights.
Am I an anarchist? No. Do I know that liberalism is not anarchy? Yes. Do I know what liberalism is? Yes.
Do you?
Of course I accept the state as a necessary evil. I've never denied that nor will I ever do. Please read what I write instead of assuming things that simply aren't true.
(editado)
I know this one of Yogi Berra. "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't."
Yes, I know that one. too :) It's both wise and funny. Comedy is about telling the truth as George Bernard Shaw wrote. It seems that Yogi Berra also had a discussion with similar "practically challenged" individual. You understand the difference between theory and practice but only theoretically. :)
I thought believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ was more important.
We believe that those are the same but there are other Christian denominations too with different names. There is absolutely no reason to use different names except to create confusion.
Then how should I call you?
If you insist on a more narrow definition, in this sense it could be e.g. "pro monogamous and exclusive heterosexuality". That would be adequate. We all also use the "pro choice" euphemism even though it is quite obvious what would be the opposite of "pro life". So, if we're polite there, it would be decent to be polite in this case as well.
Conservapedia suggests homophobia doesn't exist. If you'd be consequent, heterophobia shouldn't exist either.
It is quite obvious that this word's invention and use is a mere figure of speech, a reaction wanting to show the absurdity of homophobia as a word and a concept. If we accept it, then heterophobia is a quite logical antagonism. I propose we reject both but if first one appears, then the use of the other is quite expected.
Yes, I know that one. too :) It's both wise and funny. Comedy is about telling the truth as George Bernard Shaw wrote. It seems that Yogi Berra also had a discussion with similar "practically challenged" individual. You understand the difference between theory and practice but only theoretically. :)
I thought believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ was more important.
We believe that those are the same but there are other Christian denominations too with different names. There is absolutely no reason to use different names except to create confusion.
Then how should I call you?
If you insist on a more narrow definition, in this sense it could be e.g. "pro monogamous and exclusive heterosexuality". That would be adequate. We all also use the "pro choice" euphemism even though it is quite obvious what would be the opposite of "pro life". So, if we're polite there, it would be decent to be polite in this case as well.
Conservapedia suggests homophobia doesn't exist. If you'd be consequent, heterophobia shouldn't exist either.
It is quite obvious that this word's invention and use is a mere figure of speech, a reaction wanting to show the absurdity of homophobia as a word and a concept. If we accept it, then heterophobia is a quite logical antagonism. I propose we reject both but if first one appears, then the use of the other is quite expected.
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.
I am sorry but I didn't get your point. Why do you think that Catholics shouldn't be defined as members of Catholic Church and presumed that they accept its teachings? I wouldn't be a member of an organization if I didn't accept its rules.
E.g. I am a chess player but in my version movements of king and queen are replaced. Am I really a chess player? Or what if the main chess organization decides to change the rules and everybody accepts it except me? I continue to play it the old way. Am I still a chess player? Or do I need to call myself "old-chess player" or something similar?
Anyway, what's your point?
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.
I am sorry but I didn't get your point. Why do you think that Catholics shouldn't be defined as members of Catholic Church and presumed that they accept its teachings? I wouldn't be a member of an organization if I didn't accept its rules.
E.g. I am a chess player but in my version movements of king and queen are replaced. Am I really a chess player? Or what if the main chess organization decides to change the rules and everybody accepts it except me? I continue to play it the old way. Am I still a chess player? Or do I need to call myself "old-chess player" or something similar?
Anyway, what's your point?
We believe that those are the same but there are other Christian denominations too with different names. There is absolutely no reason to use different names except to create confusion.
Exactly. That's why I said a catholic can be pro same-sex marriage (public marriage, I'm not talking about the catholic marriage).
If you insist on a more narrow definition, in this sense it could be e.g. "pro monogamous and exclusive heterosexuality". That would be adequate. We all also use the "pro choice" euphemism even though it is quite obvious what would be the opposite of "pro life". So, if we're polite there, it would be decent to be polite in this case as well.
That's quite a long description. As long as you don't have a suitable alternative, I'll continue to use homophobia.
It is quite obvious that this word's invention and use is a mere figure of speech, a reaction wanting to show the absurdity of homophobia as a word and a concept. If we accept it, then heterophobia is a quite logical antagonism. I propose we reject both but if first one appears, then the use of the other is quite expected.
Of course. But use it correctly. Simple logic:
If A then B. If "opposed to same-sex marriage" then "homophobe". If "opposed to different-sex marriage" then "heterophobe". I'm neither of those.
Exactly. That's why I said a catholic can be pro same-sex marriage (public marriage, I'm not talking about the catholic marriage).
If you insist on a more narrow definition, in this sense it could be e.g. "pro monogamous and exclusive heterosexuality". That would be adequate. We all also use the "pro choice" euphemism even though it is quite obvious what would be the opposite of "pro life". So, if we're polite there, it would be decent to be polite in this case as well.
That's quite a long description. As long as you don't have a suitable alternative, I'll continue to use homophobia.
It is quite obvious that this word's invention and use is a mere figure of speech, a reaction wanting to show the absurdity of homophobia as a word and a concept. If we accept it, then heterophobia is a quite logical antagonism. I propose we reject both but if first one appears, then the use of the other is quite expected.
Of course. But use it correctly. Simple logic:
If A then B. If "opposed to same-sex marriage" then "homophobe". If "opposed to different-sex marriage" then "heterophobe". I'm neither of those.
There is just one way how can small economics survive without EU, being socialism or better communistic country so it is stupid want go out from EU now. Every economist know that if our GPD is 75% based on export we can now go out from EU.
Switzerland. Norway. Liechtenstein. What about them? Small countries, outside EU, rich as hell. The EU isn't needed for free trade.
Switzerland are still "financial" neutral country, they are rich cos they bank system and history. And dont forget on tourism, I was talking about production sector which needs euro and duty free zone.
Norway are rich oil country, before that they was quite poor without any significant business.
Liechtenstein... again, little production sector , more than 50% are services and money...
But yes it is possible, but not for slovakia,not for production sector.
Switzerland. Norway. Liechtenstein. What about them? Small countries, outside EU, rich as hell. The EU isn't needed for free trade.
Switzerland are still "financial" neutral country, they are rich cos they bank system and history. And dont forget on tourism, I was talking about production sector which needs euro and duty free zone.
Norway are rich oil country, before that they was quite poor without any significant business.
Liechtenstein... again, little production sector , more than 50% are services and money...
But yes it is possible, but not for slovakia,not for production sector.
if you think you can have society without taxes cos you consider it as robbery then yes, you are anarchist... you can choose yourself if it is far-right of left :-DD
Exactly. That's why I said a catholic can be pro same-sex marriage (public marriage, I'm not talking about the catholic marriage).
no... Catholic are against gay marriages and self-called catholic which are not members of catholic church but another private church can be more progressive.
no... Catholic are against gay marriages and self-called catholic which are not members of catholic church but another private church can be more progressive.
if you think you can have society without taxes cos you consider it as robbery then yes, you are anarchist... you can choose yourself if it is far-right of left :-DD
I don't know if I should consider this stupidity of ignorance. Your choice. I'm tired of explaining you what libertarianism is about. Apparently you either don't want to understand it or you don't have the brains to do so. I won't try it anymore with you. So for the f***ing last time:
- libertarianism isn't anarchism as anarchists want to abolish the state
- being against all taxes doesn't mean one wants to abolish the state; the state has other ways to finance itself
- libertarianism is neither far-right (fascism, racism, extreme conservatism) nor far-left (anarcho-communism)
Catholic are against gay marriages and self-called catholic which are not members of catholic church but another private church can be more progressive.
Really? On paper, I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church. And in my country, not all catholics (those who really do believe, not people like me) are as conservative as Sasha is. It does exist, progressive Roman Catholics.
I don't know if I should consider this stupidity of ignorance. Your choice. I'm tired of explaining you what libertarianism is about. Apparently you either don't want to understand it or you don't have the brains to do so. I won't try it anymore with you. So for the f***ing last time:
- libertarianism isn't anarchism as anarchists want to abolish the state
- being against all taxes doesn't mean one wants to abolish the state; the state has other ways to finance itself
- libertarianism is neither far-right (fascism, racism, extreme conservatism) nor far-left (anarcho-communism)
Catholic are against gay marriages and self-called catholic which are not members of catholic church but another private church can be more progressive.
Really? On paper, I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church. And in my country, not all catholics (those who really do believe, not people like me) are as conservative as Sasha is. It does exist, progressive Roman Catholics.
ad1 definition: - there is no state in case no taxes
ad2: what :-D ?
ad3: ok, my mistake.
-----------
go to catholic church and ask priest about it or ask catholic head of it (in vatican) and ask them about this your opinion. They will give you same answer. Of course you will say this catholic are not the only one true and so :-) but it is just funny
(editado)
ad2: what :-D ?
ad3: ok, my mistake.
-----------
go to catholic church and ask priest about it or ask catholic head of it (in vatican) and ask them about this your opinion. They will give you same answer. Of course you will say this catholic are not the only one true and so :-) but it is just funny
(editado)
Just one more thing: what is 'the best allocation of resources' according to you?
well I fell it's funny this qustion come from you.
the real (and only) objective libertarian theories point to gain its this.
Other ideas doesn't focus on it (they maybe prefer focusing on human rights, redistribution, progress, social justice etc.)
Anyway to answer this is very complicated, every word needs an explanation, but I would start from here
well I fell it's funny this qustion come from you.
the real (and only) objective libertarian theories point to gain its this.
Other ideas doesn't focus on it (they maybe prefer focusing on human rights, redistribution, progress, social justice etc.)
Anyway to answer this is very complicated, every word needs an explanation, but I would start from here