Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
I see that you are real democrat, but democracy is crap :-).
But till the time I dont think out something better I am not going to kill you :-D.
Anyway, at this thread we can see that none of previous or current system works fine !
But till the time I dont think out something better I am not going to kill you :-D.
Anyway, at this thread we can see that none of previous or current system works fine !
But till the time I dont think out something better I am not going to kill you :-D.
So you kill people with whom you disagree? ;-)
Anyway, at this thread we can see that none of previous or current system works fine !
That is obvious.
So you kill people with whom you disagree? ;-)
Anyway, at this thread we can see that none of previous or current system works fine !
That is obvious.
one more time...
if you have one system with big productivity (which consume more resources of course) and another system with higher happiness or other positive aspects but with lower productivity than it is just question about time when that first system will need your resources and will attack you. Other solution of this competition is that that second system will be canceled and this is not possible, I think.
I understand what you mean. Then the whole world has to go to the better system :D.
if you have one system with big productivity (which consume more resources of course) and another system with higher happiness or other positive aspects but with lower productivity than it is just question about time when that first system will need your resources and will attack you. Other solution of this competition is that that second system will be canceled and this is not possible, I think.
I understand what you mean. Then the whole world has to go to the better system :D.
It's not called a public service when you force a majority of the people into the system against their will. I'd call that slavery. The state should be a public service, but under communist rule, the people are the service for the state.
How do you know that? Have you asked someone from post-communistic countries? I doubt so. And they had a free will, they didnt have to work. They could go to jail.
Now you say, to go to jail for not working? Thats insane.
But is it? Really? Who defines whats right and what not? There are laws in both of the systems. When someone breaches them, then he has to go to jail. Simple as that.
(editado)
How do you know that? Have you asked someone from post-communistic countries? I doubt so. And they had a free will, they didnt have to work. They could go to jail.
Now you say, to go to jail for not working? Thats insane.
But is it? Really? Who defines whats right and what not? There are laws in both of the systems. When someone breaches them, then he has to go to jail. Simple as that.
(editado)
How do you know that? Have you asked someone from post-communistic countries? I doubt so. And they had a free will, they didnt have to work. They could go to jail.
That's not free will. At least it's not a free choice when you punish someone if he makes a certain choice.
Now you say, to go to jail for not working? Thats insane.
It is indeed.
But is it?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
Who defines whats right and what not?
Moral values, the ones you said disappeared by capitalism.
There are laws in both of the systems. When someone breaches them, then he has to go to jail. Simple as that.
But some laws are inhumane, some aren't. Sending someone to prison because he doesn't want to work for the government is morally wrong. If you don't see that, then it's you who's lost moral values. In my point of view, if he refuses to work for the government, no problem. If he refuses to work at all, than he won't get a penny, but I won't send him to jail (unless he commits a real crime).
(editado)
That's not free will. At least it's not a free choice when you punish someone if he makes a certain choice.
Now you say, to go to jail for not working? Thats insane.
It is indeed.
But is it?
Yes.
Really?
Yes.
Who defines whats right and what not?
Moral values, the ones you said disappeared by capitalism.
There are laws in both of the systems. When someone breaches them, then he has to go to jail. Simple as that.
But some laws are inhumane, some aren't. Sending someone to prison because he doesn't want to work for the government is morally wrong. If you don't see that, then it's you who's lost moral values. In my point of view, if he refuses to work for the government, no problem. If he refuses to work at all, than he won't get a penny, but I won't send him to jail (unless he commits a real crime).
(editado)
The laws now(capitalism) also punish someone if he makes certain choice.
There is no difference.
Moral values, the ones you said disappeared by capitalism.
And who defines moral values? And yes, they dissapeared in capitalism.
But some laws are inhumane, some aren't. Sending someone to prison because he doesn't want to work for the government is morally wrong. If you don't see that, then it's you who's lost moral values. In my point of view, if he refuses to work for the government, no problem. If he refuses to work at all, than he won't get a penny, but I won't send him to jail (unless he commits a real crime).
Who decides that some laws are inhuman?
I will give you an example for actuall laws.
A man seduces a married woman.
Is that moral? No, it isnt.
Will some law punnish him and her? No.
And there goes you theory about moral values and laws.
There is no difference.
Moral values, the ones you said disappeared by capitalism.
And who defines moral values? And yes, they dissapeared in capitalism.
But some laws are inhumane, some aren't. Sending someone to prison because he doesn't want to work for the government is morally wrong. If you don't see that, then it's you who's lost moral values. In my point of view, if he refuses to work for the government, no problem. If he refuses to work at all, than he won't get a penny, but I won't send him to jail (unless he commits a real crime).
Who decides that some laws are inhuman?
I will give you an example for actuall laws.
A man seduces a married woman.
Is that moral? No, it isnt.
Will some law punnish him and her? No.
And there goes you theory about moral values and laws.
There is no difference.
Sure there is.
Who decides that some laws are inhuman?
The mind of the people. And although there are big differences between certain people, there are some values that most people have (for instance murder is bad).
I will give you an example for actuall laws.
A man seduces a married woman.
Is that moral? No, it isnt.
Will some law punnish him and her? No.
Of course not, that is private matter, the state has nothing to do with that, unless one of the persons involved wants to divorce.
Sure there is.
Who decides that some laws are inhuman?
The mind of the people. And although there are big differences between certain people, there are some values that most people have (for instance murder is bad).
I will give you an example for actuall laws.
A man seduces a married woman.
Is that moral? No, it isnt.
Will some law punnish him and her? No.
Of course not, that is private matter, the state has nothing to do with that, unless one of the persons involved wants to divorce.
Is really funny to me reading that civil rules must be written looking towards MORALITY!
Guys we're out of middel age!!!
Rules of a modern society are made (better should be done) to macht desires and interest of people:
whatever they may be!!!
Morality is an unfair, unsure, personal and unusable standard!
I think people must take control of their interest much more and better than now.
Democracy simply doesn't work by itself, without partecipation and work of citizens,
democracy can't be a kind of service you get in your confortably home, drinking a cold beer on your sofa.. thinking "Damn, I pay taxes I HAVE to get my democracy working"
So, if your democracy is not working do not look at its flaws, look at yours (as people and as individual ones),
elseware is like who trash his pc because it doesn't work, without even looking if its turned ON..
Guys we're out of middel age!!!
Rules of a modern society are made (better should be done) to macht desires and interest of people:
whatever they may be!!!
Morality is an unfair, unsure, personal and unusable standard!
I think people must take control of their interest much more and better than now.
Democracy simply doesn't work by itself, without partecipation and work of citizens,
democracy can't be a kind of service you get in your confortably home, drinking a cold beer on your sofa.. thinking "Damn, I pay taxes I HAVE to get my democracy working"
So, if your democracy is not working do not look at its flaws, look at yours (as people and as individual ones),
elseware is like who trash his pc because it doesn't work, without even looking if its turned ON..
Sure there is.
Who decides that? You? :-)
The mind of the people. And although there are big differences between certain people, there are some values that most people have (for instance murder is bad).
Yes there are big differences. And thats why this cannot be done as you wish.
Of course not, that is private matter, the state has nothing to do with that, unless one of the persons involved wants to divorce.
Well. Then also murder is private matter.
Who decides that? You? :-)
The mind of the people. And although there are big differences between certain people, there are some values that most people have (for instance murder is bad).
Yes there are big differences. And thats why this cannot be done as you wish.
Of course not, that is private matter, the state has nothing to do with that, unless one of the persons involved wants to divorce.
Well. Then also murder is private matter.
Anyway, at this thread we can see that none of previous or current system works fine !
That is obvious.
Well, I think the system I live in is ok. I would like to see a bit less 'I' and a bit more 'WE', but that's about it I think :)
Everything could always be better (the favorite phrase of a pessimist but I ain't a pessimist ;)), but many other systems depends on the goodness of humans and to many humans aren't (selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, jealousy, hundreds of mental disorders -not all of these disorders make humans a 'bad' person or dependent but to many do-, etc etc etc etc) so a lot of systems people would like to have are nothing more then utopia's.
Self Tests ;P
(editado)
That is obvious.
Well, I think the system I live in is ok. I would like to see a bit less 'I' and a bit more 'WE', but that's about it I think :)
Everything could always be better (the favorite phrase of a pessimist but I ain't a pessimist ;)), but many other systems depends on the goodness of humans and to many humans aren't (selfishness, greed, lack of compassion, jealousy, hundreds of mental disorders -not all of these disorders make humans a 'bad' person or dependent but to many do-, etc etc etc etc) so a lot of systems people would like to have are nothing more then utopia's.
Self Tests ;P
(editado)
Who decides that? You? :-)
No, the majority of people will see the difference. If you can't, that's your problem, not mine.
Yes there are big differences. And thats why this cannot be done as you wish.
Sure it can. (of course, to make this point, you had to ignore half of my point) The majority decides.
Well. Then also murder is private matter.
No, because with murder, the physical integrity of a person is harmed. His right to live is violated. There is no right to not be cheated. Therefore, there is no offence (although cheating is a 'bad' thing obvious).
No, the majority of people will see the difference. If you can't, that's your problem, not mine.
Yes there are big differences. And thats why this cannot be done as you wish.
Sure it can. (of course, to make this point, you had to ignore half of my point) The majority decides.
Well. Then also murder is private matter.
No, because with murder, the physical integrity of a person is harmed. His right to live is violated. There is no right to not be cheated. Therefore, there is no offence (although cheating is a 'bad' thing obvious).
Yu starting to be agressive with your statements.
Well then i have to prove you wrong by your own statements.
1. Who defines whats right and what not?
Moral values, the ones you said disappeared by capitalism.
2. I will give you an example for actuall laws.
A man seduces a married woman.
Is that moral? No, it isnt.
Will some law punnish him and her? No.
Of course not, that is private matter, the state has nothing to do with that, unless one of the persons involved wants to divorce.
By saying that moral values define what is right and what is not and saying that cheating isnt against law, you are saying that cheating is moral.
Well i would say, that majority would say it isnt moral.
Conclusion:
1. You believe that cheating is moral. Ergo you are amoral in the view of the majority.
2. You believe that cheating is amoral. Ergo laws cannot be defined by moral values.
And to that what you've written lastly:
No, the majority of people will see the difference. If you can't, that's your problem, not mine.
Proof? Does the majority realy see the difference? Or is the majority enough educated?
No, because with murder, the physical integrity of a person is harmed. His right to live is violated. There is no right to not be cheated. Therefore, there is no offence (although cheating is a 'bad' thing obvious).
Well cheating has very big effects on society. The cheater becomes unhappy and angry. The cheated will become angry, and in many cases kills the cheater and the one who made it happen. Marriage will fail. Children will loose their parents. They wont be raised well. And with that the problems goes far by generations.
By your words: psychical integrity will be harmed in cheater 1 and 2, cheated, children.... His right to have a family was violated.
The problem is that there is no law for that. But why ist that?
Well then i have to prove you wrong by your own statements.
1. Who defines whats right and what not?
Moral values, the ones you said disappeared by capitalism.
2. I will give you an example for actuall laws.
A man seduces a married woman.
Is that moral? No, it isnt.
Will some law punnish him and her? No.
Of course not, that is private matter, the state has nothing to do with that, unless one of the persons involved wants to divorce.
By saying that moral values define what is right and what is not and saying that cheating isnt against law, you are saying that cheating is moral.
Well i would say, that majority would say it isnt moral.
Conclusion:
1. You believe that cheating is moral. Ergo you are amoral in the view of the majority.
2. You believe that cheating is amoral. Ergo laws cannot be defined by moral values.
And to that what you've written lastly:
No, the majority of people will see the difference. If you can't, that's your problem, not mine.
Proof? Does the majority realy see the difference? Or is the majority enough educated?
No, because with murder, the physical integrity of a person is harmed. His right to live is violated. There is no right to not be cheated. Therefore, there is no offence (although cheating is a 'bad' thing obvious).
Well cheating has very big effects on society. The cheater becomes unhappy and angry. The cheated will become angry, and in many cases kills the cheater and the one who made it happen. Marriage will fail. Children will loose their parents. They wont be raised well. And with that the problems goes far by generations.
By your words: psychical integrity will be harmed in cheater 1 and 2, cheated, children.... His right to have a family was violated.
The problem is that there is no law for that. But why ist that?
Yu starting to be agressive with your statements.
I did not, I don't see where, but I want to express it most certainly was not my intention to do so.
By saying that moral values define what is right and what is not and saying that cheating isnt against law, you are saying that cheating is moral.
Well i would say, that majority would say it isnt moral.
Conclusion:
1. You believe that cheating is moral. Ergo you are amoral in the view of the majority.
2. You believe that cheating is amoral. Ergo laws cannot be defined by moral values.
No. I'm saying cheating is amoral, but not everything that is amoral should be forbidden by law.
Proof? Does the majority realy see the difference? Or is the majority enough educated?
It was about this to be clear:
And they had a free will, they didnt have to work. They could go to jail.
Yes, people will see that this is not a real free choice, I'm quite convinced of that.
Well cheating has very big effects on society. The cheater becomes unhappy and angry. The cheated will become angry, and in many cases kills the cheater and the one who made it happen.
I think you watch too many movies.
Marriage will fail.
Not the task of the government to make sure marriages don't fail.
Children will loose their parents.
Not true, my parents divorced, I didn't loose them.
They wont be raised well.
So children who are raised by divorced parents (or one parent) aren't raised well? Thanks man! ...
I did not, I don't see where, but I want to express it most certainly was not my intention to do so.
By saying that moral values define what is right and what is not and saying that cheating isnt against law, you are saying that cheating is moral.
Well i would say, that majority would say it isnt moral.
Conclusion:
1. You believe that cheating is moral. Ergo you are amoral in the view of the majority.
2. You believe that cheating is amoral. Ergo laws cannot be defined by moral values.
No. I'm saying cheating is amoral, but not everything that is amoral should be forbidden by law.
Proof? Does the majority realy see the difference? Or is the majority enough educated?
It was about this to be clear:
And they had a free will, they didnt have to work. They could go to jail.
Yes, people will see that this is not a real free choice, I'm quite convinced of that.
Well cheating has very big effects on society. The cheater becomes unhappy and angry. The cheated will become angry, and in many cases kills the cheater and the one who made it happen.
I think you watch too many movies.
Marriage will fail.
Not the task of the government to make sure marriages don't fail.
Children will loose their parents.
Not true, my parents divorced, I didn't loose them.
They wont be raised well.
So children who are raised by divorced parents (or one parent) aren't raised well? Thanks man! ...
to write sth shorter.... Rubinho, yes you are amoral :-DD
No. I'm saying cheating is amoral, but not everything that is amoral should be forbidden by law.
Why not?
You are saying that moral values should be taken as law. But now you say, that not everything. And again only you decide which? :-))) Dont be ridiculous. Just follow your rules at least.
And they had a free will, they didnt have to work. They could go to jail.
Yes, people will see that this is not a real free choice, I'm quite convinced of that.
Lets say i want to steal something. Its my free choice. But why the law will punish me. (and i have to say, that stealing something is less dangerous to the society than cheating)
I think you watch too many movies.
Nope. Cheating leads at least to psychical disorders. Is that good for society?
Not the task of the government to make sure marriages don't fail.
Task of the goverment is to keep citizens happy.
Or its not the task of goverment to keep people from killing.
You can choose one.
Not true, my parents divorced, I didn't loose them.
One of them yes!
So children who are raised by divorced parents (or one parent) aren't raised well? Thanks man!
You are welcome ;-)
Well if you cant follow your own rules, then its time for me to resign this discussion.
Last words would be:
I was that young as you too, i admired USA and their society. Noone could convince me of the oposite. But as i became older i realized that social welfare is very important. If only one of the society is unhappy, then he makes unhappy also the others unless the others help him. People need to help each other, not hurt. In capitalism everyone wants money, money, money. They do everything for that. They dont care about that they could hurt someone. People take what isnt theirs. And the goverment doesnt give sh*t. Thats my opinion. Capitalism killed moral values.
Why not?
You are saying that moral values should be taken as law. But now you say, that not everything. And again only you decide which? :-))) Dont be ridiculous. Just follow your rules at least.
And they had a free will, they didnt have to work. They could go to jail.
Yes, people will see that this is not a real free choice, I'm quite convinced of that.
Lets say i want to steal something. Its my free choice. But why the law will punish me. (and i have to say, that stealing something is less dangerous to the society than cheating)
I think you watch too many movies.
Nope. Cheating leads at least to psychical disorders. Is that good for society?
Not the task of the government to make sure marriages don't fail.
Task of the goverment is to keep citizens happy.
Or its not the task of goverment to keep people from killing.
You can choose one.
Not true, my parents divorced, I didn't loose them.
One of them yes!
So children who are raised by divorced parents (or one parent) aren't raised well? Thanks man!
You are welcome ;-)
Well if you cant follow your own rules, then its time for me to resign this discussion.
Last words would be:
I was that young as you too, i admired USA and their society. Noone could convince me of the oposite. But as i became older i realized that social welfare is very important. If only one of the society is unhappy, then he makes unhappy also the others unless the others help him. People need to help each other, not hurt. In capitalism everyone wants money, money, money. They do everything for that. They dont care about that they could hurt someone. People take what isnt theirs. And the goverment doesnt give sh*t. Thats my opinion. Capitalism killed moral values.