Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

This is an assumption I do not share. FSM is at least as consistent in its worldview and moral values as Catholicism. So why wouldn't FSM be considered valid while Catholicism would?

FSM is not a religion but a subversive reaction to religion. It has no structured approach on any important moral issue nor even an authority to take care of it. It's just an atheistic parody and it's not even funny.

I am willing to believe this ;-)

Well, if you would be friends with common sense, you would. ;)

Not that different. I think this is an important issue in life, and I just think it's remarkable you cannot explain why monogamous heterosexuality is the only 'healthy choice' (I think you used these words).

Why would I explain to you why the sky is blue when you can google that yourself?

Exactly. And apart from that, I believe most people try to make good choice. Most people are idiots though. Succeeding is a whole other dimension than trying.

Well, that's why they choose representatives to parliament so that they can make choices less idiotic than they would make by themselves. ;)

No I didn't. This is about state discrimination, and I object ALL forms of state discrimination. That you feel discriminated because you're not allowed to use the state to discriminate others is really funny. But above all, it doesn't make sense.

Once again and for the last time, I don't use the state to discriminate others. I use it to have and protect a common set of moral beliefs. "Discrimination" is an avoidable indirect consequence of this. Your thesis that a common set of moral beliefs is not necessary is a dangerous idea while "discrimination" is tolerable. I am also "discriminated" in that sense. Basically everyone is.

Every system has its basic rules (like in democracy, it is impossible to democratically abolish the democracy). In a libertarian democracy, it is impossible to use the state to discriminate certain groups of citizens.

It is possible to democratically abolish democracy. Ever heard of Hitler, Chavez, Mugabe?

FSM is not a religion but a subversive reaction to religion. It has no structured approach on any important moral issue nor even an authority to take care of it. It's just an atheistic parody and it's not even funny.

FSM is for people who don't have a religion themselves as much of a religion as Catholicism.

Why would I explain to you why the sky is blue when you can google that yourself?

Comparing "monogamous heterosexuality is the only healthy choice" to "the sky is blue". Way to go.

Well, that's why they choose representatives to parliament so that they can make choices less idiotic than they would make by themselves.

Please, tell me more about the parliament not being full of idiots making ridiculous decisions.

I use it to have and protect a common set of moral beliefs.

Imposing your beliefs (regardless of the number of people who share your beliefs) by using the state is discrimination.

Your thesis that a common set of moral beliefs is not necessary is a dangerous idea while "discrimination" is tolerable. I am also "discriminated" in that sense.

Not in that sense. Maybe by your definition of discrimination. (Which is a valid one, but using 'that sense' is wrong.)

It is possible to democratically abolish democracy. Ever heard of Hitler

Please, tell me more about how the Enabling Act was passed democratically.

It is possible to democratically abolish democracy. Ever heard of Hitler, Chavez, Mugabe?

EPIC FAIL!!!

FSM is for people who don't have a religion themselves as much of a religion as Catholicism.

?

Comparing "monogamous heterosexuality is the only healthy choice" to "the sky is blue". Way to go.

I was comparing the whys: "why does Catholic Church supports that view" to "why the sky is blue". It is both common knowledge and easy to find.

Please, tell me more about the parliament not being full of idiots making ridiculous decisions.

Twisting my words again. I wrote less idiotic. The key idea about democracy is fairness and not competence. Monarchy with a wise monarch would work better in that sense.

Imposing your beliefs (regardless of the number of people who share your beliefs) by using the state is discrimination.

My belief is that you're wrong about this and I will gladly impose that belief on you in the name of truth and justice. ;)

Not in that sense. Maybe by your definition of discrimination. (Which is a valid one, but using 'that sense' is wrong.)

Yes. I am also "discriminated" by democracy. I don't agree with all decisions of my government. Well, I don't agree not even with most of the economic decisions and they largely influence my quality of life.

Please, tell me more about how the Enabling Act was passed democratically.

Of course that the abolishing of democracy will be performed undemocratically. Well duh, how else? The point is that we can always elect a government that will do that. So, it is possible that democracy ends by election of government that decides to abolish democracy and it has already happened more than once unfortunately.

?

You're right, that sentence was rather strange. Let me rephrase. For people who don't have a religion, FSM should be treated equally (like Catholicism). It are only religious people who will say: "Don't treat FSM like you treat Catholicism, FSM is just a parody". To non-religious people, FSM makes as much sense as your religion.

It is both common knowledge and easy to find.

I'm not denying that. I'm just saying it's remarkable that you don't want / you can't explain yourselves why you defend this point of view (this POV is an important issue in life).

My belief is that you're wrong about this and I will gladly impose that belief on you in the name of truth and justice.

And that is why I'm libertarian while you're authoritarian. (Authoritarianism is not the same as dictatorship; authoritarianism is compatible with democracy whilst dictatorship isn't.)

Yes. I am also "discriminated" by democracy. I don't agree with all decisions of my government. Well, I don't agree not even with most of the economic decisions and they largely influence my quality of life.

Well, I wouldn't call that discrimination. (Though I fully agree with the fact that it is wrong that the government imposes economic decisions, let that be clear.)

Of course that the abolishing of democracy will be performed undemocratically. Well duh, how else? The point is that we can always elect a government that will do that. So, it is possible that democracy ends by election of government that decides to abolish democracy and it has already happened more than once unfortunately.

Would you mind being consequent? I quote you: "It is possible to democratically abolish democracy. Ever heard of Hitler, Chavez, Mugabe?" (10h40). 50 minutes later you say: "Of course that the abolishing of democracy will be performed undemocratically." So what is it?

Mind you that I said it is impossible to democratically abolish democracy (to make the analogy that it is impossible in a libertarian democracy to impose moral values). I never said that democracy can't be abolished.

So instead of pretending to be the guy of the rational, logical thinking and constantly shouting that we are the ones making logical fallacies (joint with things like ), you should start reading what other people write and react on it consistently without changing your mind every 50 minutes.

Edit: Yes, I hate emoticons in a discussion.
(editado)

You're right, that sentence was rather strange. Let me rephrase. For people who don't have a religion, FSM should be treated equally (like Catholicism). It are only religious people who will say: "Don't treat FSM like you treat Catholicism, FSM is just a parody". To non-religious people, FSM makes as much sense as your religion.

I'm sorry but that is not only completely false but it is completely absurd.
1. You're trying to pretend that all non-religious people share your views.
2. You're trying to pretend as if non-religious people are an authority about religion based on the fact that they don't see any differences between them.
I am so sorry you have an issue with emoticons so I will only say that I am ROFLing without using a graphical presentation. Smile.

I'm not denying that. I'm just saying it's remarkable that you don't want / you can't explain yourselves why you defend this point of view (this POV is an important issue in life).

Why is it remarkable? If I can find a better explanation than my own to which I agree, why would I have to explain it myself? Anyway, being that you insist, in short, it all comes down to the fact that it is an only option that actually works and lasts when it comes to fulfilling the purpose of sexuality: having and raising children. All other options are just abuse of the pleasure part which evolved to be a reward and motivation. Homosexuality is infertile and promiscuity involves physical health risks. What's the controversial part about monogamous heterosexuality being healthy? Now really?

Would you mind being consequent? I quote you: "It is possible to democratically abolish democracy. Ever heard of Hitler, Chavez, Mugabe?" (10h40). 50 minutes later you say: "Of course that the abolishing of democracy will be performed undemocratically." So what is it?

Mind you that I said it is impossible to democratically abolish democracy (to make the analogy that it is impossible in a libertarian democracy to impose moral values). I never said that democracy can't be abolished.

So instead of pretending to be the guy of the rational, logical thinking and constantly shouting that we are the ones making logical fallacies (joint with things like ), you should start reading what other people write and react on it consistently without changing your mind every 50 minutes.

That is because you're trying to lead a hypothetical discussion and I am not interested in intellectual gymnastics. I want answers that are practical. That's why when I say that democracy can be democratically abolished, I don't want to discuss that such statement objectively doesn't make sense but I want to say that democracy can be used for the purpose of being abolished.

But anyway, to get us back to where we started about basic rules of each system, you wanted to say that the basic rule of democracy is that majority decides about limits imposed by the state while in libertarian democracy even the smallest minority, i.e. an individual is free to remove those limit if he finds them not necessary and limiting his freedom. Did I get this right?

Anyway, I don't even care if I got this right any more. I think it should be pretty clear how it works and it isn't. It is highly hypothetical and impractical. It's similar to extremity of communist ideas. Communists: "Let's just all be fair. We'll do that if we don't own anything really important. State will decide about everything." Libertarians: "Let's just all be free. We'll do that if we don't agree on anything really important. State will not decide about anything." It doesn't work. We don't even have to try this time to know it.

Yes, I hate emoticons in a discussion.

Well, deal with it. They replace the emotions from RL discussions and I can't have a discussion without showing them when I think that they need to be shown.

1. You're trying to pretend that all non-religious people share your views.
2. You're trying to pretend as if non-religious people are an authority about religion based on the fact that they don't see any differences between them.

Well, I should have said unbiased instead of non-religious. For unbiased people, a flying spaghetti monster is as likely as a dude splitting the Red Sea or a dude making a blind person see again. So yes, they should be treated the same.

And where exactly did I say there were no differences? Of course there are differences. No man has ever killed someone in the name of FSM for instance. No person with authority within the FSM-movement has ever called to exterminate opponents ('the infidels'). Can you say the same about your so beloved Catholicism?

Why is it remarkable?

Because one would expect people with strong opinions (strong does not reflect the content of the opinion) that they are willing and able to explain that opinion.

Anyway, being that you insist, in short, it all comes down to the fact that it is an only option that actually works and lasts when it comes to fulfilling the purpose of sexuality: having and raising children.

That's your primary purpose of sexuality. People have the right to disagree on that. That doesn't mean they're making unhealthy choices. Most of the time, sexuality hasn't got the purpose of making kids.

Are you against the use of condoms for non-medical reasons?

What's the controversial part about monogamous heterosexuality being healthy?

Nothing.

Homosexuality is infertile

So people who are infertile by nature having sex is an unhealthy choice? (This is really basic logic if homosexuality is an unhealthy choice because it's infertile.)

promiscuity involves physical health risks.

That indeed involves health risks. So this is an unhealthy choice, just like smoking is one.

That is because you're trying to lead a hypothetical discussion and I am not interested in intellectual gymnastics.

This has nothing to do with hypothetical discussions. I said that democracy cannot be abolished democratically. You said it can and gave Hitler as an example. That is a fail even the Roman Catholic Church would be embarrassed about.

you wanted to say that the basic rule of democracy is that majority decides about limits imposed by the state while in libertarian democracy even the smallest minority, i.e. an individual is free to remove those limit if he finds them not necessary and limiting his freedom. Did I get this right?

First of all (to be clear), when I used democracy there, I meant 'liberal' democracy (the one we have).

So in a liberal democracy, the majority decides but is restricted by some basic rules that are unchangeable (like the non-violation of human rights). The moment those rules are being violated by the state, we can no longer speak about liberal democracy.

In a libertarian democracy, the majority also decides and is restricted by basic rules too. The difference is that those basic rules are fundamentally different from the ones of the liberal democracy. So the state is simply not allowed to impose taxes, moral values, ..., apart from the basic rules of course. So no individual has to remove himself from those limits as they simply do not exist and cannot exist without leaving libertarian democracy.

They replace the emotions from RL discussions and I can't have a discussion without showing them when I think that they need to be shown.

In a discussion, one should (I'm not forbidding it) not have emotions and if one has them, one should not express them.

Well, I should have said unbiased instead of non-religious. For unbiased people, a flying spaghetti monster is as likely as a dude splitting the Red Sea or a dude making a blind person see again. So yes, they should be treated the same.

And who gives to the people the certificate that they are unbiased?

And where exactly did I say there were no differences? Of course there are differences. No man has ever killed someone in the name of FSM for instance. No person with authority within the FSM-movement has ever called to exterminate opponents ('the infidels'). Can you say the same about your so beloved Catholicism?

Well, when there's reason to be passionate about something, it sometime makes people do both great and horrible things. It only shows character of people that got inspired by the idea. Has FSM inspired anyone to do deeds of Francis of Assisi, of Mother Theresa, of George Lemaitre, of Blaise Pascal? Of course not because there's nothing inspiring about it.

That's your primary purpose of sexuality. People have the right to disagree on that. That doesn't mean they're making unhealthy choices. Most of the time, sexuality hasn't got the purpose of making kids.

I think everyone who knows little about evolution would agree with me. And yes, people have the right to be wrong about it but it does mean that they make unhealthy choices. People have the right to make a tattoo but it's still unhealthy for their skin. Most of the time our teeth don't have the purpose of biting or chewing but those still remain their purposes.

So people who are infertile by nature having sex is an unhealthy choice? (This is really basic logic if homosexuality is an unhealthy choice because it's infertile.)

It's not basic logic. It's just a common logic fallacy and the most common one with you: Straw man argument.
Example.
Me: "It is not healthy to sit all day. You should walk."
You: "People that can't walk sit all day. Sitting all day is healthy."

Infertile people don't have a choice to make. Being infertile is not healthy per se.

This has nothing to do with hypothetical discussions. I said that democracy cannot be abolished democratically. You said it can and gave Hitler as an example. That is a fail even the Roman Catholic Church would be embarrassed about.

I gave Hitler, Chavez and Mugabe but you decided to cherry-pick as usual. OK, I don't know if I failed about the Hitler example but I admit just to get you off my back on this. I have failed. I failed big. I failed like no man has failed before. Now, let's get back to the point: democracies get abolished by people electing a government that abolish democracy.

So in a liberal democracy, the majority decides but is restricted by some basic rules that are unchangeable (like the non-violation of human rights). The moment those rules are being violated by the state, we can no longer speak about liberal democracy.

In a libertarian democracy, the majority also decides and is restricted by basic rules too. The difference is that those basic rules are fundamentally different from the ones of the liberal democracy. So the state is simply not allowed to impose taxes, moral values, ..., apart from the basic rules of course. So no individual has to remove himself from those limits as they simply do not exist and cannot exist without leaving libertarian democracy.

Yes. I understand. And it sounds completely impractical and unsustainable. I simply can't imagine how you will be able to make it work without ending in dictatorship of the minority like communism did. It's just too ideological to work. You will have people who say they know how it should work and they will terrorize the people who honestly claim that they don't see it working and that will oppose it for that reason. So, the same result as with communistic ideas.

In a discussion, one should (I'm not forbidding it) not have emotions and if one has them, one should not express them.

Man, I am so happy that I live in the Mediterranean.

And who gives to the people the certificate that they are unbiased?

Unbiased in the sense of not adhering to any religion. You cannot do this because you assume Catholicism is right. That's your premise. Only people who do not have such a premise can be objective. There is no more evidence for Catholic claims (about divinity and the hocus-pocus) than there is for FSM-claims.

Has FSM inspired anyone to do deeds of Francis of Assisi, of Mother Theresa, of George Lemaitre, of Blaise Pascal?

Probably not. But those individuals are for me seriously outnumbered by history.

I think everyone who knows little about evolution would agree with me.

I didn't say I disagree with it. I just disagree with calling it an unhealthy choice.

It's not basic logic. It's just a common logic fallacy and the most common one with you: Straw man argument.

If you are the master of logic, explain me where I'm wrong:

You say that homosexuality is an unhealthy choice because the primary function of sexuality is reproduction and that is not possible between two persons of the same sex. I agree on that being the primary function. However, I disagree with homosexuality being an unhealthy choice. I do so because if you want to be consistent, you must also say that having sex while you know one of the partners involved is infertile is an unhealthy choice because reproduction is not possible when one of the persons involved is infertile.

I'd rather call homosexuality a rational choice. Apparently, homosexuals feel attracted to people of the same sex. Sex itself is not unpleasant (:p). Ergo, having sex with people you feel attracted to is rational.

Infertile people don't have a choice to make.

They do. They chose whether to have sex or not with someone they feel attracted to. Just like homosexuals chose to have sex with someone they feel attracted to.

democracies get abolished by people electing a government that abolish democracy

So? That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

I simply can't imagine how you will be able to make it work without ending in dictatorship of the minority like communism did.

Defending natural rights doesn't make one a dictator. Communism never got past the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat because people 1) will never think all alike and 2) want to stick to power they have. Libertarianism gives the power to nobody and forces nobody to think alike.

Man, I am so happy that I live in the Mediterranean.

The only reason I'd want to live in the Mediterranean is because of the good weather and the beauty of its nature. I would never want to live in the Mediterranean ;-)

Unbiased in the sense of not adhering to any religion. You cannot do this because you assume Catholicism is right. That's your premise. Only people who do not have such a premise can be objective. There is no more evidence for Catholic claims (about divinity and the hocus-pocus) than there is for FSM-claims.

That's complete nonsense. Every single person has a stake in this issue except maybe an apatheist and I haven't met any of those yet. Even the non-religious people will evaluate different religions through the eyes of their choice and they will seek confirmation that they are right/unbiased. That's why e.g. a Muslim would never equate the value of Catholicism and obscure religions while many atheists obviously would.

And FSM is not a religion and its claims are not religious. FSM is just poor comedy.

Probably not. But those individuals are for me seriously outnumbered by history.

Oh Jesus. Not only logic, but history and math too. Art maybe? :)

History has a problem with counting good deeds. It doesn't care so much about "business as usual". It usually is focused on wars, famines, villains, slaughters etc. So, no historical data will enable you to compare the amount of good to evil in general and let alone to distinguish between religious denominations.

However, if you make a benchmarking analysis of various atrocities, you will find that there is less of it which is inspired by religion and they are even much less efficient. I already posted here this link with statistics of historical democides performed by various political systems. Data speaks for itself.

If you are the master of logic, explain me where I'm wrong:

I am no master. The problem is that you make beginner's mistakes.

You say that homosexuality is an unhealthy choice because the primary function of sexuality is reproduction and that is not possible between two persons of the same sex. I agree on that being the primary function. However, I disagree with homosexuality being an unhealthy choice. I do so because if you want to be consistent, you must also say that having sex while you know one of the partners involved is infertile is an unhealthy choice because reproduction is not possible when one of the persons involved is infertile.

It's the same logical fallacy but only masked in more words. Being infertile is not healthy per se. Homosexuality is not healthy per se. What people do with any of the two doesn't change the fact that neither infertile nor homosexual couples will be able to procreate.

Btw, our personal health which includes fertility is definitely not a public category. Everyone is presumed fertile. It would be quite rude to ask people about their health in that sense. The same applies to sexual preferences as well. It's polite to presume everyone to be a healthy fertile heterosexual. Talking publicly about health problems makes sense only in terms of needing help with your problem.

They do. They chose whether to have sex or not with someone they feel attracted to. Just like homosexuals chose to have sex with someone they feel attracted to.

You're right. They do have a choice. They have a choice of checking once more if they are fertile.

Defending natural rights doesn't make one a dictator. Communism never got past the phase of the dictatorship of the proletariat because people 1) will never think all alike and 2) want to stick to power they have. Libertarianism gives the power to nobody and forces nobody to think alike.

Dictator's are not defined by what they stand for but by how they do it.

The condition of a society with nobody having power is unsustainable and leads to anarchy and chaos. Liberal democracy at least limits the time of how long someone has power and that power is even revocable before the time expires.

long posts are not trendy in 2013 ;-)
you both should try define your opinions in more compacted text :-)

Why freedom of speech should not be restricted when offensive opinions or remarks are dealt with. Rowan Atkinson, more simple and clever than ever.



Feel free to insult me for I don't care.
(editado)

I agree.
great Atkinson's speech!!!

Staff in "one game" should learn a lot from.this speech :).

It sounds nice what he says, but free speech must always be limited, and there will always be some examples, when someone was punished, who shouldn't have been. You can't make a rule, that deals with every special cases.

Where would you draw the line? Which should be legal?
- insulting ideologies
- insulting people
- insulting religions
- insulting races / nationalities
- denying holocaust
- telling people to kill some other people
- telling people to kill some other people, and then tell their exact locations

Where would you draw the line? Which should be legal?

Two exceptions (that are across the line): threats and defamation. So your list is quite simple.

LEGAL
- insulting ideologies
- insulting people
- insulting religions
- insulting races / nationalities
- denying holocaust

ILLEGAL
- telling people to kill some other people
- telling people to kill some other people, and then tell their exact locations